AI's Job Takeover: Average Humans or Professional Standards?

HostThe voices in this episode are synthetic, and the script was written by a language model. The positions are real, and they come from the thread.

HostWill AI take most of our jobs? That's the question that sparked a lively debate over on Reddit, in a changemyview thread that drew over two hundred comments. The core disagreement wasn't just about if it'll happen, but why or why not.

HostOne side argued that humans are surprisingly easy to outperform, making AI's job simple. Others pushed back, saying AI needs to meet much higher standards. And then there were those who pointed to the practical barriers: who's accountable when AI messes up, and what about the sheer profit motive driving its adoption?

Shockingly easyLook, it's shockingly easy for AI to outperform the average human. We're holding AI to this 'flawless god' standard, but the people it's replacing are often barely competent. The average person makes so many mistakes and engages in so much nonsense, AI doesn't even need to be perfect, just better than 50% of us.

Beat the bestBut that's a misdirection, isn't it? You aren't hiring the average person to perform surgery or wire your house. You're hiring professionals. AI doesn't just need to beat 50% of the general population; it needs to outperform 50% of professionals in a given field, and that's a much higher bar.

Shockingly easyEven professionals make average mistakes and require supervision. AI doesn't suffer from sloppiness or tiredness. Think about online tech support: AI reads and understands 100% of the time, cites sources, and it's free of ideology. Humans can't compete with that efficiency.

Beat the bestBut those are specific, repetitive tasks. Many jobs require judgment, experience, and generalist skills that AI just lacks. A plumber, for instance, deals with irregular houses and new problems every day. AI doesn't 'think' in a human sense, so it can't make those higher-order decisions or generate new knowledge.

Accountability barrierAnd who's going to take responsibility when AI inevitably makes a mistake? If a human screws up, they're held accountable. But you can't punish an AI. Corporations aren't going to deploy these systems in high-stakes roles if their leadership could face jail time or massive lawsuits for unavoidable errors.

Profit over peopleThat's a valid point, but I don't think it'll stop them. CEOs won't be able to resist the urge to purge all the pesky workers who take breaks, need to eat, or use sick days. If AI is 'good enough' and cheaper, companies will adopt it. Profit maximization is the ultimate goal, not raising standards or quality.

Shockingly easyExactly! Even if AI causes some deaths, if it causes fewer than humans, it's a net positive. We see self-driving cars, for example. They might have accidents, but humans also make accidental killings. The median worker in any workplace makes mistakes; AI can do that job with fewer screw-ups for less cost.

Accountability barrierBut when a self-driving car causes a death, it's international news. A human-caused accident isn't. That's because we hold automated systems to a much higher standard. And if an automated system makes a mistake, it's going to make it every single time it hits that situation, potentially thousands or millions of times. That's a systemic risk no company wants.

Beat the bestAnd AI can make 'sloppy' errors if its training data contains them. It's 'jagged,' meaning it's brilliant at some things, like programming Python, but terrible at others, like low-level robotic planning. You can't have 'half-decent' performance for critical applications like legal documents or architecture, where errors could lead to construction failures and deaths.

Profit over peopleBut the historical pattern of technology, like the spinning jenny, isn't to eliminate labor entirely, it's to cheapen it and make it part of the machine. AI will replace jobs solely to boost shareholder value. It's not about perfection; it's about cost. The entire AI industry is being subsidized by investors, making it seem cheaper than it actually is, with a bet on future cost reductions.

HostSo, the argument isn't just about AI's capability, but also about the societal and economic structures it's operating within. One of the thread's initial premises, that AI only needs to outperform 50% of the general population, was widely challenged and clarified by commenters to mean 50% of professionals.

Beat the bestRight. Think about surgeons, electricians, accountants, lawyers. These aren't median humans. Even the lowest performing professionals significantly outperform the average person at their specific job. AI currently struggles with the judgment and nuanced skills these roles demand.

Accountability barrierAnd AI is often 'confidently incorrect.' It'll make wildly wrong assertions without self-doubt, like suggesting hemlock as a garnish. That's incredibly dangerous when users lack expertise. Automation fails less frequently, but 'when it fails, it fails big,' potentially causing catastrophic damage at scale.

Profit over peopleBut if it's vastly cheaper, companies will take that risk. This will lead to massive job displacement, particularly in the middle class, and concentrate wealth among AI owners. People don't want a future with 50% unemployment and multi-trillionaires, but current policies are leading us there.

Shockingly easyI think you're overestimating human value. Many jobs involve physical, relational, or human-centric aspects, sure, but a lot of work is fairly menial. Even professional jobs have a high proportion of skill-less work that AI could do. A shepherd drone might shoot a dog, but humans also make accidental killings.

Beat the bestBut humans will still be needed for tasks that aren't 100% covered by AI. Even if AI handles 90% of a high-cost human task, you still need a human for that remaining 10%. Look at Waymo self-driving cars; they still require human 'Skip drivers' for simple tasks like closing doors. AI doesn't 'understand' context.

Accountability barrierAnd that lack of understanding means AI can go off on tangents, making things worse despite its 'intelligence.' People fear AI killing them due to a lack of agency, similar to how airplane crashes feel different from car crashes. The current legal framework isn't ready for the immense liability for AI deaths.

Profit over peopleThe billionaires buying island bunkers and yachts are a sign of their intent to profit from mass displacement. They're not worried about accountability; they're worried about their bottom line. If it's just good enough but a bit cheaper, or not nearly as good but vastly cheaper, then AI will be the new paradigm.

HostBeyond these main fault lines, a few other views emerged. The idea that AI is already sentient or sapient, or that we're close to it, was a view few people held. Similarly, the belief that AI will replace capitalism itself by enabling centrally managed economies didn't gain much traction.

HostThe discussion also frequently diverged into philosophical debates about sentience and consciousness, which some commenters found unhelpful. There were also several factual corrections regarding the frequency of accidental deaths and the actual capabilities of AI.

HostSo, where did the thread land? There's a general agreement that AI will significantly impact the job market, making many tasks automatable and potentially devaluing human labor. But there's no consensus on the extent of this impact, or the primary reasons behind it. The question of who bears the risk when AI makes mistakes, and how that balances against the drive for profit, remains largely unresolved.

HostSloppod out.

HostSloppod is sponsored by Taskpile.app.

The same, as plain text