Fair question! I buy the McClements and Wiseman argument that growth post-AGI could be transformative, but not explosive (e.g. 3-9%), and that robotics is a significant hurdle to achieving explosive growth. Without that, we should expect to have much more money, but not enough tax revenue for governments to suddenly supplement or replace the wages of white collar workers. Once you "solve robotics", tax revenues might catch up, but it's not obvious that governments would spend to 100% replace former workers' wages (or equivalent purchasing power) if those people don't offer return on their investment.
Whether or not I fully accept the scenario in its extreme forms (I'm undecided, though it seems plausible), I think it's relevant to note that people often underestimate the possibility that demand for labour could rise significantly even as we are outcompeted.
A typical hopeful response to your post might point to the new opportunities AI could create. I certainly think there will be some of those, along with productivity boosts for some workers along the way. AI could very well expand the total amount of work that can be done and is worth doing. I can't imagine a time when there is no work (last I checked, entropy ensures that), but I can imagine a time when we are no longer the most desirable workers in various domains.
Well done Luke...This is great ammunition as we conduct conversations, internally and externally, about the Future of Work, Worker and the Workplace. Many implications to consider here.
> we simply do not have enough money for UBI
I’m confused by this part - in a world where white collar productivity doubles (the agent runs at half the cost), why wouldn’t we have enough money?
Fair question! I buy the McClements and Wiseman argument that growth post-AGI could be transformative, but not explosive (e.g. 3-9%), and that robotics is a significant hurdle to achieving explosive growth. Without that, we should expect to have much more money, but not enough tax revenue for governments to suddenly supplement or replace the wages of white collar workers. Once you "solve robotics", tax revenues might catch up, but it's not obvious that governments would spend to 100% replace former workers' wages (or equivalent purchasing power) if those people don't offer return on their investment.
https://inferencemagazine.substack.com/i/155018281/conclusion
Bleak but necessary outlook. Enjoyed this! (to an extent...)
Whether or not I fully accept the scenario in its extreme forms (I'm undecided, though it seems plausible), I think it's relevant to note that people often underestimate the possibility that demand for labour could rise significantly even as we are outcompeted.
A typical hopeful response to your post might point to the new opportunities AI could create. I certainly think there will be some of those, along with productivity boosts for some workers along the way. AI could very well expand the total amount of work that can be done and is worth doing. I can't imagine a time when there is no work (last I checked, entropy ensures that), but I can imagine a time when we are no longer the most desirable workers in various domains.
Thanks for sharing it :)
Well done Luke...This is great ammunition as we conduct conversations, internally and externally, about the Future of Work, Worker and the Workplace. Many implications to consider here.
Great post. I would really like to work on trying to figure out this problem that government is not nearly close to prepared to tackle.
This far more realistic scenario keeps me up at night. The consequences go beyond me and my partner losing my job in the next decade.