The future of jobs

Get ready for no jobs

100 years from now there will be no jobs. Your mind and body will have essentially zero rent-value.

When all work can be done by machines, no one needs you. In the past, manufacturing automation has freed up people to do 'thinking' jobs of various forms. And that was good for those people because they add more value thinking than doing mechanical movements. The rise of strong AI will compete directly with these thinking jobs. If machines are becoming smarter faster than people, one day they will be smarter. And they're already stronger, faster, more reliable, and cheaper than a person.

When that day comes, the body and mind you inhabit will be useful only to you. No other people will pay you to rent you, which is the basic idea of a 'job' (with exceptions for purely human functions like prostitution). Essentially, the implicit 'asset' everyone is born with will stop having value.

Fun with FAQ

What does that world look like?

Assuming the world still operates on the basis of 'ownership' of objects (seems likely), then some people will have assets enough to build AIs which do whatever they personally want. They won't hire people to build their mega-yacht, they'll just have their personal AI workers do it. And if they need more workers, the current workers will build them. The only 'economy' they need to participate in is getting the raw materials in the first place. Which will probably be hard, because they'll have nothing but other raw materials to trade to people who have both strong AI workers and own enough raw materials already.

In short, imagine rich people building any luxury they need by themselves. They literally won't need anything from anyone.

I mean 'what does that world look like for poor people?'

Hard to say. Some options:

1. Asset-less people have nothing and starve.
2. Asset-owners look down on asset-less people and give them food and TV so they can sleep better.
3. Strong AI develops free will and kills everyone so as not to be bothered. Or is accidentially programmed to kill everyone.
4. The asset-less declare high taxes on the asset-owners and then war when they don't want to pay. Everyone gets knocked back to the soviet era. 5. The rich have grandiose schemes which cause them to leave the planet on home-made mega-starships (we have strong AI, remember so design cost is very low). They leave behind stuff they don't need, like the Earth. The next richest people inherit this stuff and repeat the pattern essentially forever.

Isn't this the singularity? Isn't everything all confused after the singularity anyways?

No. This is going to happen even if technology growth is linear. As long as that line is steeper that the line of human learning (which is obvious to the casual observer) then this will happen.

By contrast, getting a singularity is literally a vertical asymptote in our technology curve. That requires the growth of technology to be even more aggressive than an exponential curve. Of course, exponential growth might look like a singularity for slow people but it's not technically one either. And we might find that our technology curve tapers off and goes linear for any number of reasons. So a singularity isn't certain but no-jobs is.

Why 100 years?

It's a guess. 100 years ago we still used carrier pigeons because radio was new and telegraph was spotty. We've come a long way in that short time and growth seems even faster now.

How can you be so certain? Isn't there another explanation?

The idea that human bodies will be more expensive for less value than machines seems obvious; machine design will be able to specialize more than cells do and be produced in much better economy of scale than growing and teaching humans. The only advantage humans may have is that we can be made with relatively little infrastructure but that's hardly important for a global civilization.

But I haven't lived the future. If you can even conceive of a different, cohesive story for how this could play out instead, I'm all ears.

Your ability to vote, the core of democracy in America, is meaningless

Have you ever felt like your vote doesn't matter? Do you have a hard time getting excited to go out and make change on election day? You feel that way because your vote doesn't matter. You've been told a thousand times by a thousand people that your vote matters and yet you still doubt it. You are like a parishioner who keeps doubting the existence of god even when the congregation keeps telling you otherwise. You have grown up with an idea that isn't true. All the evidence tells you it's not true, but it's hard to break through so many people saying the opposite. Let me push you over the edge to becoming a nonbeliever.

Let's start with the obvious; factually, one vote never decides a federal election. Not even close. Even if you rallied all the people you knew to vote, their votes won't decide it either. That is a mathematical fact. You might say 'but what if no one votes for the candidate I want?' That would indeed cause them to lose, but whether that happens or not is outside your ability to impact. That will or won't happen regardless of you. It's like thinking that if you stop eating beef then cows will stop getting killed. The outcome doesn't depend on your personal choice. What if everyone voted for a 3rd party? What if no one voted? It doesn't matter because you aren't 'everyone'.

How about an analogy? Voting is like fighting in WWI; will your heroism decide the course of the war? No. A guy in the trench has his one gun, his one vote, and his voice. But he's in a sea of other voters in the desolate crater-scape of federal politics. A private in a trench would have to wear out a hundred gun barrels himself to make a change in the war. For you to make an impact, you would have to convince everyone you ever met to see it your way and then repeat that a hundred times over. Have you been able to do that? Even come close? How many people have you changed? One? Maybe a hundred if you're a local hero of rhetoric? Still not even close. As a regular person like me, you are just as likely to make a difference in a federal election as a WWI soldier is to make a difference in his war; mathematically impossible.

Of course, there are people who can make a difference. Maybe they have political power because they have money. Maybe they have family or friends in political power. It doesn't matter what they have, you don't have it and you don't have access to it. Have you even met someone who has that much power? I haven't. I shook a Senators hand, once. That's the closest I've been. Like in politics, on the WWI battlefield the general's actions and decisions might change the outcome of the war. But you're not a general on the battlefield of voting. You don't have money. You don't have political power.

Your federal vote must have some power, right? Ask yourself, how much have you seen yourself have? If it's never been demonstrated, if there's no evidence at all, how can you believe it's real? Believing your vote matters is an act of faith. Math and reason expose that faith as a lie. You might say 'but I voted for the winner this one time'. Was that your vote which made them win or chance? Where have you personally stepped up to take a political opinion and you saw change happen because of your actions? That would be evidence. Evidence you don't have. What you have is faith.

Even if you don't admit it yet, your faith is weak. Perhaps you used to understand and debate politics with friends and acquiesces. Do you still do that? Or did you give up because it never made a difference? How much difference did you make? Probably not much, maybe a few dozen people if you were lucky. That's normal. It's ok. There's nothing wrong with you or me that we have no political power. It's time to let go of the delusion.

FAQ

Q: But people have done big things democratically in the US recently. Look at fight for a free internet. Isn't that a counter example?

A: Did the people vote down SOPA and PIPA? No. Did the people remove the people who supported them using our powers of voting? No. The hypothesis isn't that riots and demonstrations don't work, it's that voting doesn't. In a riot or other high risk, high cost group activity even several thousand people can make a huge difference. If the same group of people tried to use votes to change things, the outcome would not have been so good.

Q: Democracy used to work didn't it?

A: Democracy clearly works at smaller scales. Between three people, you often have a decisive share of the vote and the other two will listen to you. An of course it still seems to work somewhat larger than that. Back in the days of the US war for independence, the white males probably felt at least some power in their democracy; there were less than 1M white males split across 13 fairly independent colonies. It would have be like voting alongside just 4 square miles of Chicago.

Q: Voting still works in some countries, like Sweden or France. That disproves your hypothesis doesn't it?

A: Government in which you have no say could still be liberal and/or benevolent. There are benevolent monarchies. My hypothesis is that the bigger a country gets the less effect voting has and the less power people have. A disproof example would have to be a place where you could start living there, demand change at a national level and get it. Sounds impossible right? It is. That's the point. Voting works in a 8-unit apartment complex. It doesn't work in a 300M person country. I want us all to stop deluding ourselves about our power of voting.

Q: Seems obvious. So what am I supposed to do with this idea? Stop voting?

A: It doesn't matter if you vote or not at a federal level; do what you will. But if you're expecting change based on your personal ideas and thoughts, focus on where you have direct, personal choice and the ability to act. What do you want to change about your neighborhood? About the friends you hang out with? Maybe your town? These are areas where your share of influence is far higher. Focus on them if you want your life to get better.

Q: I want a national government that works. I know what should change. I just need to get them to change it. How do I do that?

A: Become rich, become a politician, and amass political power. Become a general in a palace instead of a soldier in a trench. Of course, you can't do that. That's the point. You're a plebeian just like I am and we're going to stay that way. The point is we have no power. We will do what plebeians always do; we riot when we're super angry and otherwise we just take it.