She's in her 20s, educated, and lives in a country that, for all its problems, is on a strong growth trend. She's not a 60yo UAW worker in Detroit.
Don’t bio and related fields have an over supply? I was under the impression there weren’t enough jobs for people educated in these fields, especially not for “more productive than GPT-level work”.
A valid question is are there inventions for which this would not be true? I think yes for general AI, but also yes for people who are unable to migrate between a job lost and any of the new jobs created due to lack of education or willingness to reinvent themselves or relocate to where the new jobs are. Innovation can definitely create winners and losers. That’s bad for the losers, but not necessarily for society as a whole. Unless so many losers are created that they rise up and overthrow the system. That’s a real long tail risk if the pace of change sufficiently outpaces our ability to adapt to it.
In Northern Europe it’s handled quite well. In the U.S. it’s handled with a “callous lack of empathy” as you phrased it.
My point is disruption is the engine of progress, but it also causes temporary pain (that might not be temporary on the scale of human lifetimes.) It’s the wrong reaction to want to stop or slow progress. You can actually prove that through the lens of game theory and the fact that we have multiple human societies. The right thing to do is ensure your society doesn’t leave the losers of that process behind.
The issue is that as change comes faster and faster, a higher proportion of people fall into the "disrupted" category.
It’s still a good thing for society - the alternative is halting or slowing progress.
> got the answer wrong in the first try, but some chain-of-thought prompting and boom. GPT4 gave the correct answer
And that person trusts GPT where it got things wrong, but continues hallucinations on the topic, later presents new raport, maybe research paper.
Shouldn’t the huge productivity gains we’ve seen mean that there are fewer people with jobs today than there were then, by your reasoning?
