From Cambridge to Eternity: “AI vs. Job Loss 02”

 

Hated by the former US president Harry S. Truman, the economy has two hands. Where there is a “take,” there is a “give.” Where there is no “give,” there is no “take.” More generally, where there is an action, there is a reaction and vice versa. Therefore, there in the economy is no such thing as “equilibrium” or ceteris paribus. In other words, an “organism in equilibrium” must be an oxymoron in the worse sense; a life on the Isle of the Dead?

            In the first place, none of us in the hat of “the household” of economics would like to be put to “equilibrium” in any sense of the term.

 

The Concern: “AI and Job Loss” Don’t worry, be even happier!

            Where there is demand for AI, there will eventually be supply of AI. Where there is no demand for AI, there is absolutely no supply of AI in and from the right mind.

Scenario #1. Suppose AI’s dominate mechanical creation per annum of products for the present and assets for the future. Most of us might become not to have much to do on the side of such mechanical creation. As a natural consequence, nearly everybody has too much leisure time, or time of “indolence” Thomas Malthus talked about.

            Let us be jubilant and take it as good news. We can now think of all different kinds of exciting events not written in textbooks or FM’s (formal manuals). That’s highly plausible primarily because Homo Sapience is created to hate boredom. Then on, we can tell with surety that RI’s are much better than AI’s in reducing the aggregate human boredom of the nation. If so, RI’s will help other RI’s avoid boredom, or "kill time" for that matter, while earning incomes to spend for “necessaries, conveniences and luxuries” Thomas Malthus talked about.

            We already told you so, “Even pets prefer RI’s to AI’s for the sake of excitement.”  

Scenario #2. Suppose Sam Altman & Co., Ltd. dominating a particular segment or two of the economy. There are good news and bad news as always. Bad news: The number of trillionaires is limited.

            Good news: The effect of their wealth is non-limited to them. The wealth of theirs helps keep the rest of population living on. First, “money” as “the purchasing power” must turn back and forth between the two parties; otherwise, money would “be of no use” to either side. In this regard, highly-progressive income tax or wealth tax is a possibility, to the mutual benefit nevertheless. The “physical assets” they have the title to must be beneficial to the rest of population; otherwise, the assets would “be of no use” to either side. In this regard, their assets could be rented at bottom low rates, to the mutual benefit at any rate.

            We never lose jobs but we change hats: we create value outside of AI’s’ dominance.

The Worst Scenario of All. The company itself would perish if the “otherwise” as above of “their wealth being useless” turns out to be the case. With AI’s down, the economy would turn back to "as usual." Lots of jobs returned to the rest of population, we do not need to worry and can just be as happy as before, if not happier.

            No sooner we lost the jobs than Sam Altman & Co. had stopped creating AI’s.

Reckoning. The head, we win. The tail, we end up even. C’est la vie en rose!

            Who would be the party to lose out if ever, RI’s or AI’s? Absolutely positively, the loser is to be the latter.

Andrea Bocelli, Edith Piaf - La Vie En Rose