I'm an AI-optimist but typically focus on the moral and philosophical arguments for it. Your piece here offers some really good points for the economic and business side with jobs specifically-- I like that. AI is definitely something people are worried about, especially when it comes to having enough room in future industries for both them and humans. One point you made was critical to understanding this: the automation of medial jobs means businesses have opportunities to create new positions, get new workers, expand their reach, etc. It's an often overlooked feature of progress in general. There will always be problems, that's actually good. And every solution will bring new problems to solve, but they will be better than the previous ones! It's takes somewhat of an optimistic outlook and I think you've got that.
Bryan Caplan has this bit, I'm not sure if he got it from Bastiat or not, but it's about basically this: If we cared so much as about preserving farmer jobs ~200 years ago and forsook mechanized farming, we would 1) make a lot less food 2) be less rich 3) be more miserable working farm jobs. Productivity gains help everyone in the long term, and unlike specific job protections, the benefits disperse to the rest of society.
The point was not that "more people use banks today because of ATMs." It was "Automating technologies increase productivity for workers." When ATMs were created, some thought it would end the teller occupation, but instead it allowed banks to do more, so they expanded bank branches and hired more tellers. Your point about free checking accounts is a non-sequitur because ATMs and tellers are presumably doing the same amount of work. You're assuming that the tellers are the ones setting up the accounts or something and that assumes that there are an increasing number of people year on year setting up accounts. Both are false.
You are projecting. You don't understand what I'm saying, what a teller does, how an ATM would replace the teller, or the role of technology with productivity and automation, as evident by your comment here. I'm not engaging further.
I'm an AI-optimist but typically focus on the moral and philosophical arguments for it. Your piece here offers some really good points for the economic and business side with jobs specifically-- I like that. AI is definitely something people are worried about, especially when it comes to having enough room in future industries for both them and humans. One point you made was critical to understanding this: the automation of medial jobs means businesses have opportunities to create new positions, get new workers, expand their reach, etc. It's an often overlooked feature of progress in general. There will always be problems, that's actually good. And every solution will bring new problems to solve, but they will be better than the previous ones! It's takes somewhat of an optimistic outlook and I think you've got that.
Bryan Caplan has this bit, I'm not sure if he got it from Bastiat or not, but it's about basically this: If we cared so much as about preserving farmer jobs ~200 years ago and forsook mechanized farming, we would 1) make a lot less food 2) be less rich 3) be more miserable working farm jobs. Productivity gains help everyone in the long term, and unlike specific job protections, the benefits disperse to the rest of society.
Great point. Progress, improvement is the goal, the problems coming from that are solvable after all! Sounding like an Abundance vision too LOL
I think you have missed the point.
The point was not that "more people use banks today because of ATMs." It was "Automating technologies increase productivity for workers." When ATMs were created, some thought it would end the teller occupation, but instead it allowed banks to do more, so they expanded bank branches and hired more tellers. Your point about free checking accounts is a non-sequitur because ATMs and tellers are presumably doing the same amount of work. You're assuming that the tellers are the ones setting up the accounts or something and that assumes that there are an increasing number of people year on year setting up accounts. Both are false.
You are projecting. You don't understand what I'm saying, what a teller does, how an ATM would replace the teller, or the role of technology with productivity and automation, as evident by your comment here. I'm not engaging further.