That is actually a good point. I fully agree that we are at a level where AI can displace some labor due to an increase in productivity, if demand for the increased productivity does not exist.
In software development, a theoretical 20% increase in productivity without a 20% increase in demand could technically mean that somewhere in between 0% and 20% of your workforce is now unnecessary. And this is indeed true across many other industries.
And I fully agree we don't need 100% unemployment to have catastrophic results. Hell, 10% unemployment is already enough to make things pretty grim out there.
But you will agree that "AI increases productivity that reduces the amount of labor needed" is substantially different from "AI replaces humans". Framing is important if we want to have a meaningful conversation and speak the same language.
> But you will agree that "AI increases productivity that reduces the amount of labor needed" is substantially different from "AI replaces humans"
You are 100% spot on! thats the thing that really annoys me about futuroligist breathlessly saying "a new economy!" and all that junk, is that its just like the advent of steam, electricity, or the telegraph or lorries, or desktop computing.
The thing that futurloigist _forget_ is that these things caused unemployement, and huge social change.
In software development, a theoretical 20% increase in productivity without a 20% increase in demand could technically mean that somewhere in between 0% and 20% of your workforce is now unnecessary. And this is indeed true across many other industries.
And I fully agree we don't need 100% unemployment to have catastrophic results. Hell, 10% unemployment is already enough to make things pretty grim out there.
But you will agree that "AI increases productivity that reduces the amount of labor needed" is substantially different from "AI replaces humans". Framing is important if we want to have a meaningful conversation and speak the same language.