Hacker News Reader

Comment by 000ooo000 | Hacker News Reader

I can't help but feel these hyper optimistic takes on AI are just pure naïveté. Does one really think that redirecting the earning potential of a good chunk of the white collar population into the pockets of the already-wealthy is going to end well? I can't see a soft-landing scenario.

View on HN

There is a good chance this creates greater wealth disparity, and it seems certain that the white-collar job market will contract in the near-term. I am not sure that earning potential will necessarily be limited by this, however; the bar to do things has drastically been lowered for anyone with a computer and $200 a year to spend on a subscription to Claude or the like.

Earning potential may increase, even for the displaced, in the long run. Still early

Earning potential should be considered in the context of increased wealth disparity though. After all, the rich and the poor are competing for the same resources. I work for a well known chip design company as an embedded software developer, and wages in my country (Australia) have not kept up with house prices (like many countries). Part of the housing price equation is buying power of the wealthy, which prices out younger people and those without family wealth. There's no scenario where my wages get me out of the rent cycle, no matter how productive I am and how much unpaid overtime I do to further the company goals.

I agree that the purchasing power of wages ought to be considered in this context. It is certainly true that one's wages must increase at a faster rate than prices for it to be considered a net positive.

I would argue that housing prices are artificially inflated. Supply is constrained by regulations like zoning and rent controls, which causes scarcity and hence higher prices for existing housing.

I would argue that, like other technological advances, the advent of AI will lead to greater productivity, and thus more abundant resources, given that the supply of labor does not shrink.

Agree that housing is definitely an issue, but not one without a solution.

I agree regarding housing. What I'm sceptical about is whether these potential productivity gains benefit those who work to survive or those who live (or at least derive a substantial income) from passive gains from assets. Have we not increased productivity since the year 2000? In those 25 years things have not got better for workers. My parents come up into the middle class from abject poverty in the 50s (think wards of the state and foster homes). Free education and a much less competitive job market, and low house prices and rents, enabled them to get up in the economic hierarchy. If they were born in the 90s like I was, there would be no chance of that.

Ultimately, we will have to end capitalism as we know it and establish some form of UBI - for the mere reason that the bigwigs have no-one to sell things to when everyone is out of a job and there is no money. Which would give rise to a secondary economy, which is not ai-replaceable: actual artistic expression, pottery, woodworking, ... - what people like to do, not what people are forced to do out of economic necessities.

It's that, or French Revolution 2.0 and Ludditism, and everyone becomes a slave again. I hope that we have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com