Last week, Jack Dorsey, a co-founder of Twitter, announced that his company Block is cutting its head count from 10,000 to fewer than 6,000 because AI tools mean it needs fewer workers. It is not the first company to make such an announcement, and won’t be the last. But it raises a question: if AI takes jobs, are workers doomed? To many observers, the answer must be yes. Negative consequences for the labor force seem like an inevitable byproduct of advancing AI. Indeed, machines that automate work seem to promise exactly such outcomes: they start performing tasks that labor once did, which seems to imply that workers will experience worse economic prospects. Faced with the possibility of being displaced, many might hope that AI progress will slow or even stall, allowing humans to remain competitive.

But, in evaluating AI's implications for the workforce, it's misleading to think of AI as simply a replacement for labor. To complete the picture, we need to consider the fuller set of forces that are unleashed when machines automate types of work. In particular, we must engage two other economic features that sharply condition outcomes for labor: first, how machines affect prices, and second [...]

---

Outline:

(02:36) Automating Agriculture and Computing

(06:21) Machines and Prices

(09:05) Bottlenecks

(13:03) Three Caveats

(20:08) Discussion about this post

(20:11) Ready for more?

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.