00:01 AI will lead to a massive productivity boost and create new job roles. 02:13 AI is disrupting job roles like call center operations and sales back office. 06:31 AI requires responsible and safe usage with training. 08:37 AI technology continues to improve, reducing error rates and increasing usability over time. 13:04 Disruptive technology is creating new powerful companies, particularly in the cloud business. 15:08 Open-sourcing AI provides free tools for innovation and independence from proprietary platforms. 18:53 Consider using multiple providers for AI implementation to optimize solutions. 20:25 Discussion about semiconductor shortage and progress of AMD and Intel 23:51 More intelligence in the world is better for progress and open source is a positive contribution. 25:31 The fear around AI's impact on humanity is diminishing, focusing on concrete applications and regulation. 29:16 Corporations are enthusiastic about AI, and non-technical understanding unlocks brainstorming. 31:11 AI automation can improve productivity and allow focus on other tasks.
I tutor Python online. Last year: $1200/month. So far this year: $200/month. Fortunately I’m not heavily dependent on that income, but I imagine some tutors are. Or were.
Why not create a AI course for Python, and only have people ask you questions? Also too many people in software, not enough peolpe are doing hardware. We need to improve robotics and assembly, imagine if we had billions of tiny robots, you could easily develop robotics by testing different types of configurations and if one robot didn't work you can jump to the next tiny robot. This requires us to build robots that build smaller robots out of clay or 3D printing or inject molding so those smaller robots can make even smaller robots. Then you can control those robot hands with your own hands using VR controller with touch feedback, and it would record your hand interactions and then play it back to build other robots so you can have millions of robots, then you can test different things on the robots and if it causes the robot to get destroyed to to "trip over" you can jump to other robots.
I've been a dev for a while (since 2005) and I still take online courses to keep up to date, or just practice. I recently bought a course for a topic I wanted to brush up on and noticed something. I wasn't learning anything because I had on co pilot and it was auto filling in a lot. I turned it off and it was learning like usual again. The thing I noticed is that it was a course where the repo was public, so it was pulling in a good amount of correct stuff, however, at first I was just accepting most of the stuff and realized that a bunch of what it was doing was wrong. It's only because I knew what I was doing + looking for I was able to debug. That is when I turned it off and realized that I can use this for some boilerplate and to explain issues in chat format that were too hard to google. And of course it's good for courses, but at work it's helpful but not amazing yet. I'm sure it will get there, but not sure when. Hoping my house is paid off before that happens though 😂
@@aoeu256"AI course for python" is such a blanket statement. You do realize that what you call Artificial Intelligence is just a bevy of algorithms that stem from statistics, probability theory, calculus and algebra, right? Do you know how hard it is to have a good grasp of all that?
Just look at the stats for developer roles in the job market. Its crashed since 2022. Tech industry over hired for 3 years and needs to revert to the mean. AI simply helps developers fail faster.
I have a lot of respect for Andrew Ng, but I've been seeing a lot of doublespeak from people in the field recently, with the phrasing of "it can replace humans in certain kinds of work" swapped with "it just does tasks". It sounds more diplomatic. Lots of AI people don't want to outright say that they would think it would make everyone happier in the long run if we replaced almost the whole shebang. I mean I think we would be happier.
Mainly I mean that many AI advocates who are in a position of high influence are saying that they don't want to replace most jobs, but in the long run I think most AI advocates do want to replace most jobs, including myself. It's like a compromise in the form of a skewed truth, because they don't want to scare people. A small lie to shift the overton window a little bit.@@JayDee-b5u
Consider carefully the implications of AI replacing tasks that a person does on a routine basis. This does not mean each person will keep their job and just do more interesting higher level work. It really means fewer people will be utilized to do the same amount of work or even more work. Productivity will mean a pool of 10 people will be reduced to 1 or 2 doing the same amount of work currently being done now, just differently. This reminds me very much of my early office experience and what I witnessed with the introduction of personal computing and later the dawn of the internet. When I started work, each executive in my company had a secretary. There were also file clerks supporting the C-suite. The support staff numbered 20 in a company with about 15 executives. This was 1989. Within a decade the File Clerks were gone and rather than each executive having a secretary, only the CEO had a dedicated individual, the rest of the VPs and Senior VPs shared individuals - usually 3 or 4 executives to a single secretary or AA. Today, the pool of assistants is even smaller. One AA still is dedicated to the CEO, but only 1 or 2 AAs service the remaining 14 executives. How did this happen? Word processing, scheduling software, online travel bookings, voice mail, the collapse of dictation and inter-office memos replaced by first email and then messaging, later zoom, etc.. So, bottom line -- YES, tasks will be eliminated just as they predict. But what they aren't saying is that JOBS will be eliminated as well. Using my Administrative Assistant example, you will end up with 1 person currently doing the job of 5 or 10 people. Those other jobs aren't being replaced. You don't need as many people when the AI can do so many tasks. So, where a factory once needed 500 people, it might need only 15 or 20 in future to monitor the equipment and machines. You can apply this across many other industries. The biggest problem up to this point has been the loss of 'entry-level' middle class work. By that I mean jobs that needed some education and provided a small toe-hold in the middle class with white collar work -- basically desk work in a nice office with modest pay, health benefits and maybe a 401K. Not a huge salary, but not physical labor. Now, however, we are looking at AI moving UP the food chain in skills, destroying not just the AA jobs but middle management and eventually the COO, the CFO and all the accountants, plus even the CIO and all his or her minions, leaving maybe a small team of say 2 or 3 executives (wild guess) plus 1 support person, and all other humans in the org being either replaced and reduced to a handful monitoring the machines. We are looking at massive income inequality, the final collapse of the lower, middle and even upper middle class and the emergence of a small hyper-rich cognitive elite. That's the short term. Long term?? Who knows. The final piece of the puzzle here is this conundrum. While technology has spawned a host of new jobs, those jobs have required an increasingly high level of cognitive ability and education. Unfortunately our population only has a limited pool of people with IQs that can continue to acquire skills at a rate fast enough to adjust, adapt and do those jobs. Bottom line: Society needs to find work for a lot of people (at least the middle 60% of the population) that have only upper middle, middle and lower middle IQs. What are these folks going to do? Sure, physical labor is possible for some, but not all, and the real hit will be to the group of people that are 'average or above average' in intelligence but not smart enough to adapt. These are the people that 50 years ago would have ended up in middle management or some respectable, but not senior role in an organization. They are going to be wiped out and impoverished.
this assessment is so true. we keep hearing that AI will create new jobs. yes it will, but its clear to anyone who is paying attention it can destroy many more jobs than the new ones it creates. its honestly extremely hard to even imagine what common people and even people with moderately above average IQs will do in a world where an AI agent is vastly superior at doing any task.
You're forgetting that this couldn't possibly come to pass because without people with incomes, you don't have a business. If no one buys, you don't sell. You COULDN'T have a tiny elite with everything. There would be a balancing point between employment and profit growth. No one knows where that is, though.
@@andreww.8262 we are not really diving in that deeper. Maybe, if they reach sufficiently reliable levels of intelligence, capitalism will cease to exist. Maybe true communism will be the only way, if you as a person can't add sufficient value back in the society. UBI, or distribution of recourses is basically communism, right?!
ATMs replaced bank tellers. Groceries stores have self checkout. Get used to it. Find something to use your brain. AI can't replace that and never really will as it's not a human
yes, but that took 30 years. A.I. development is moving extremly fast. we might have AGI within the next 5 years, thats if we dont have it already...(you familiar with the speculation around Q-star?) @@bsgvlog5640
Some technologies do create far more jobs than they eliminate but I think AI is a different beast. I am seeing more negatives than positives when it comes to the job market.
the issue most people in the AI and economic sector don't see or don't want to acknowledge is that the destructive creation of Schumpeter is working only as long as the tech created is able to be used by the average man, that's not the case at all with AI, only the smartest people can use it and it will delete on a large scale jobs that were done by the average man and even a little over the average which will create a destructive imbalance in soociety I think.
I disagree. We are not seeing the advent of AI means in the future every person is a business owner with their AI employees. If more people can understand this and the potential they have in terms of their domain knowledge (this could be geographical, social) and understand that we need to move away from thinking like an employee, and building skills in order to get a job but rather build skills that are difficult for machines to develop, we will be ok. If anything, I think the AI revolution will require humans to be more human rather than to be more like machines.
@@clarencelam1765 look around at the state of the world. This IS exactly how humans are. Take gooooood look: our true human nature status, power, money, vanity, greed, and it is never enough. Oh yeah. And why, we never make it to AGI/ASI. Humans will destroy each other weilding and swinging this giant thigh bone of a new technology tool around like a two year old, the disruption and destruction of lives and lively hoods be damned. For the greater good of course. Oh yeah, perhaps Oprah, Elon, Sam Altman, and Tom Cruise will be the only humans left, hanging out in their compounds on Maui. Rest of us, don't even get Festivus. Hunger Games contestants perhaps, but that would become boring to them fairly quickly, they'd cancel the show, and let us commoners all die out.
"customer service people can just change into doctorates of AI from universities and apply for positions that require you to have a doctorate in AI, whats the problem?"
A robot that's as smart as a human can be taught to do any job that a human can do. How does that NOT lead to the massive displacement of humans from the labor force?
Brilliant as always. Ng is one of the giants of ML. It’s true that ML researchers don’t know how to build superhuman AI. Today. But Ng sees no end in sight to the stacked S curves of innovation ahead. It’s not unreasonable to wonder if we could land in a dangerous place within 5-20 years. The eye rolling is beneath this great man.
My take - S-curves by their nature are not dangerous things. Humanity today stands on top of 1000's of historical S-curves. The only thing that is dangerous is a runaway exponential curve, and Andrew is pretty much the only guy saying "Not going to happen" because saying Exponential--->OMG--->AGI--->Matrix gets anyone free press.
Once we can manufacture intelligence, it's hard to imagine what would be the barriers that generate new S-curves. Have a hard physics problem? Just manufacture 1000 Einstein's and get them to work together. We can all speculate about what such a world would look like but it's probably like residents of Sentinel island trying to understand what it's like to live in Tokyo.
Ai is inherently pointed at removing jobs. We need to think about the permanent loss of jobs and how to redustribute wealth and benefits accumumated from AI when working class humans become unemployable.
@@krox477 That's not a solution you actually want, that just let's the elite control everything, own all the capital and now that capital is forever in their hands while you get a 0.0001% of what it produces.
new technology will always make us more productive, create jobs, destroy others - but I think the no. of jobs lost will outnumber the no. of jobs created.
What do you mean? Do you know the amount of job roles in existence right now that were not even a thing just 10 or 15 years ago?? Your job is NOT your job! You do not OWN it. This narrative really annoys me. Grow up, man! Augment yourself with NEW knowledge and NEW skills. You owe it to yourself.
Agreed ...because, in general, as much as I will be hated by the woke crowd for saying this, women usually (not always) lack objectivity and creativity in natural sciences because this requires abstract thinking. Nothing inherently good or bad about it, after all, they make up for that in their genius in emotional intelligence. And this is not my observation alone, throughout the history, the philosophers have come to the same conclusion. Look at Schopenhauer's essay on women.
@@harperdada7344 Your view about gender is so outdated that an opposing view imo wouldn't be 'woke' but 'up to date'. Also in former times there were lots of female computer programmers f.e.. There's an interesting article about that in the NYT titled: The Secret History of Women in Coding.
@geaca3222 it's not my "views," it's my observation based on what I saw in this world ..and thanks for quoting "NYT"...goes to show where you are getting your theories from ...
The NYT article is an example of women's history which largely is unknown to men and even most women. societies have been brainwashed with outdated concepts. so live and let live, don't put your prejudices on other people. Or start your own thread or blog about your view of women. @@harperdada7344
Very pacifying, but I think in reality we will see new companies spring up in each sector which completely obliterate 'human heavy' conventional businesses. For example, a handful of film makers using AI will bring out blockbuster quality films which overnight send Disney out of business. Not entirely an exaggeration.
exactly. there will be millions of 1-person business with 100 ai "employees". the issue is they won't hire people. and lots of people don't have the bandwidth or drive or knowledge or intelligence or willpower to create a business. they will definitely have no job
@@joelalain I tend to align with your view. Already a part of social media consumers are bots, so it's not far fetched to imagine new businesses with no employees and producing goods/services for other AI systems. A completely new economic branch which does not involve humans.
Unfortunately, the case is exactly the opposite... Big companies with their huge leverage and capital power will buy large data centres (think NVidia data factories) and large amounts of energy for cheaper due to economies of scale to run their vision and LLM models at a massive scale for a fraction of the cost.
I am an a tech consultant at at fortune 100 and I can tell you that the management is uninterested in my ideas to utilize AI throughout the business. I’m not sure how exactly you become an “AI consultant”, but I do wonder if there is much demand for it.
sadly the future is unemployment for most, but AI salesmen and employers can't just come out and say it. if you're a working class individual, wake up. you are the horse, they're the car, and if you don't speak up. look at history, looks at what happens to those who become "useless", don't wait till there is no bargaining power in your hands.
All it means is people will have to transition to more important work. Instead of answering phone calls all day people might go work in a hospital or school. We desperately need folks to pick up a hammer and build houses or do improvement products.
Tech entrepreneurs like Andrew Ng who are concerned about the impacts of AI on the labour force should instead think about the removal of the compulsion of labour on people to earn thier lively hood by making the masses aware of the tremendous AI productivity. AGI will be far more capable of generating economic resources for an universal, unconditional, guaranteed Basic Income or UBI replace the exploitative wage-labour that will unleash the enormous potential benefits of the AI to the society.
I think we’re seeing a massive (often accidental) gaslighting campaign. You can’t automate all the jobs yet, and until that becomes possible companies want as many potential workers are possible, as always. In order for those workers and potential workers to keep throwing themselves into the grind, they need to believe there’s a future to their job and that the current paradigm is indefinite
@@lucacarey9366 Of course, it is very difficult to automate some of the human work or jobs. However when most of the job demands gone in couple of decades and the wages replaced by UBI, all the human work have to become voluntary work out of love or concerns or self work, not the exploitative wage labour.
@@lucacarey9366 I have also been perplexed by the statements I see coming out of people like Ng (I'm a huge fan, his Coursera AI course one of the best classes I've ever taken). The Venn diagram of superior human capability with regard to automation is shrinking rapidly, is seems obvious how this plays out over the next 5-10 years. I tend to think that a lot of these people truly want to believe that this will be akin to other past technically-driven revolutions (e.g., printing press, steam, IT). It reminds me of the old quote, "it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism"... Though this isn't a great fit as this is all about capital crowding out labor.
Entrepreneurs like Andrew are selling their product without thinking about the societal consequences. I don't believe they even consider it as "part of their responsibility". They assume the governments will deal with the consequences and figure some solutions.
The AI profits go to the companies. The government will not tax them because of campaign finance and lobbying. You will just get a repeat of the end of the railway era where the barons owned nearly everything and nobody else owned a dime. A New Deal 2 will eventually come but the last one took about a 100 years and two World Wars before it got passed.
All these VC and C-suite level talks seem to miss the bigger picture of job "loss" which to me is about economic disenfranchisement rather than the relatively shallow question of "will jobs exist/will I still have mine?" There's a lot of talk of whether we'll still have things for people to do but not what will the power dynamic between employer and employee be in a post-ai enhanced workforce. Personally I have a very hard time seeing it as anything other than a cheapening of labor and an even faster rate of growing wealth inequality. Much of the trend I'm seeing with this LLM "accelerated" work seems to be about "lowering the barrier" and "democratizing" any sort of work. These are positive spins on it but if you dig deeper this can also be phrased as "removing professional moats". By removing the need to hire a professional artist to produce an ad you've lowered the cost of the ad, economically disenfranchised the artist, and rendered any artistic training an AI product can produce net-economically negative (and this could be applied anywhere from tech to law to medicine). Certainly this won't be all of the work, but it's by in large targeting professional white collared workers moats and replaces it with jobs that have a much lower one. Imagine a scenario where say 4x productivity in each knowledge domain reduces expert staffing need to 25% of previous levels and to replace the previous expert jobs the company hires with just as many people as "entry-level prompt engineers". Will the moat for such a position be high enough for the prompt engineers to have any bargaining power? Will the now flooded market of the disenfranchised professional be able to sustain the same type of life? Certainly they could leave their position go home and apply to several thousand newly minted 'ai-enhanced jobs' but why would a corporation bother to compensate anyone for popular work with a low barrier to entry? There's a lot of talk about this reskilling but not what a worker's moat would look like in this scenario. It's most executives' dream come true to be able to free their company from all highly compensated folks and rehire at minimum wage and pocket the difference. I don't think we'll see anything to this extreme but I think these tools by and large moves the needle in that direction. As we "democratize" all skilled work the economic employer/employee relations sustained by scarcity of skill will dissipate and leave behind a richer CEO and a poorer city.
AI doesn't require social and healthcare services, doesn't need education and the police, doesn't need roads to travel, so we pay for AI so that our products get cheaper, that's the idea anyway. They used to complain about unemployed horsemen, later they lined up for driving jobs. The next generation would certainly have to get into robotics and software development, it's us who find it intimidating, but the kids are embracing this.
@@fedorbutochnikow5312 I think that part of the fear is that new technology is scary. At the start of the Twentieth Century, people were afraid of telephones and cars but they were perfectly normal for people who were born after 1900. Thirty years ago some people were afraid of personal computers and cell phones but now they are perfectly normal. So AGI may be scary now, but in thirty years it will be perfectly normal to the robot babies being built.
@@dibbidydoo4318 It is a risk assessment, not based on evidence. Consider that NASA is investing in asteroid deflection research, when we may never need it. But the risk is way to big to ignore it. The same can be said about the AI - it may never happen, but if it does, the risk may be too great to ignore.
@@dibbidydoo4318 We have no evidence that an extinction level asteroid is going to crash into Earth in the next 1000 years, but NASA is still preparing for the eventuality. It is about risk management. AI has a significant risk of destroying the civilization as we know it (I am not talking about Terminator).
I don't think we should be afraid of AI in the sense of replicating killer robots like Terminators. Rather I ask the following question: What is the one of the most dangerous things we already have on Earth? Dictators are holding back humanity and what is worse than a human dictator? *Dictator AI* that want to rule over humanity forever. A terrifying though.
What's missing is a full brain interface to comunicate directly with any AI model instead of using smartphones. Maybe have a LLM like ChatGPT break down the work into tasks and have specialized AI models do each task. A protocol for models to share their experience between them would also help.
Consider all the workers globally who offer their skills on freelancing platforms for things like copywriting, graphic design , research etc. AI can do many of these roles at a junior to mid level now. I’m sure I heard an interview with Andrew where he suggests that a universal global wage should’ve considered by governments. I wonder if his policy advisors and media people have asked him to role back on some of his statements
Andrew Ng’s description of radiologists’ work actually aligns more with other professionals, mostly technicians and other physicians like emergency doctors.
what about the people who take low skill jobs to get medical benefits or a little extra cache, or something to get out of the house, to feel like they are doing something positive or people with disabilities that are limited where these jobs offer some social connection and self worth. Simple extra income or social service will not take up role of these jobs. The unintended consequences can be a large group of disenfranchised and isolated people. Can automation of this type create a issue between supply side and demand Can AI automation exacerbate inequality and concentration of wealth.
There has rarely been an invention or discovery which has significantly increased the human race’s ability to achieve greater convenience, productivity or performance, which has not also eventually led to detrimental consequences
One negative effect of AI that I am experiencing as a software engineer is that the technology leaders have really bought into the idea that productivity must increase 50 to 100% with chatGPT. However, since realistically our current technologies only improve productivity by perhaps 20 to 30% even with the most thoughtful prompt engineering skills, all that extra expected productivity gains must be met by simply working longer hours and weekends. With the current state of the economy, tech employment feels like a priviledge, so it is time to bring out the shirts that say "90 Hrs/Week and Loving It" and be happy, or else!
This time is different.. ai is ubiquitous. It doesn't just replace once sector like in agriculture, it can be applied to everything we do an even can't do now. This is why there will be mass unemployment, not just a transition hiccup as in the past.
@@Thefare1234 Another possible outcome is something like in the movie Elysium, where there's two societal classes, the minority ones who have everything, has isolated itself from the rest of the world, has its own economy, army etc., and the vast majority who lives in poverty and has no means to produce anything. Based on our history, I see this outcome more probable than utopia you described.
@@Jedimaster36091 I doubt it'll be like Elysium. Robots doing things on our behalf is likely to be an abundant resource, more so than waiting 18 years or more for a productive workforce. You're looking at something that anyone can build anywhere, whenever they need it. This means anyone can have anything, especially if AI helps advance technologies like fusion, vertical or underground farming, and desalinisation plants. At that point, because each of them can be built anywhere, there is no incentive to keep those technologies to yourself. Anyone can build a self-sufficient community anywhere, and this protects the ones who "have everything" because each of us can be left alone.
@@cody4rock I wish it'd be as you say, but I am afraid it wouldn't. First, robots "do things" for their owners. As factories are going to scale up the use of robots to produce goods, and AI to "produce" services, the human employment is going to scale down. I am not sure who will make the consumer base who can afford to buy these "abundance of products and services", if there is mass unemployment. So far, AFAIK, no one has publicly addressed this concern. My assumption is that the robot owners (aka companies) will not be interested (nor equipped) in solving this society issue, and keep focusing on "follow the money". Which is why I suspect a parallel economy where products/services are traded between the AI systems, could appear.
The reason we dont pay as much attention to the application is its difficulty to reach monopoly. While there will only be a few OpenAI, there will be tens of thousands of office agents helping you boost productivity in all kinds of edge scenarios. Thus, from a revenue and value standpoint, they will be important for society. But from a business perspective, those small businesses combined will not generate merely as much profit as OpenAI
Depends on competition. TH-cam have never made money. Creators on TH-cam has made money. This is because TH-cam has no moat other than running at a loss.
He's talking about the very short term. If you assume strong AGI, which I think is on the 5 year horizon, there is no job AGI can't do faster and better than a human, including dreaming up capital investment opportunities. I think a lot of people that promote AI just don't want to admit to the public that it will commoditize intelligence.
AI generated images have already destroyed my stock footage portfolio that I spent years building. AI will give corporations the tools to finally get rid of anyone not in the C suite.
no customer services, no assemble manufacturing jobs, no scrub nurses and other low skills labor forces, what else most people would end up of doing except investors, ceo, managerial positions, politicians and journalists.
It's naive to think that, once businesses are able to use AI to automate tasks (rather than jobs) business won't reduce headcount. Labour is one of the most expensive aspects of running any business.
Invest everything you can because in 30 years you’ll be on UBI. There won’t be much left a robot can’t do better faster cheaper and they’ll be smarter than you
If AI and its robots do not replace jobs in the market, that would be a disappointment for those who throw billions in it. That is how they can make a return.
Im not sure how big companies will survive and male profits if people start losing jobs because of AI. Though I agree not all jobs will gone but it will definetly impact and not everybody can scale up and start learning AI skills.
@geaca3222 There r videos showing how maids and caregivers cruelly treat children and the elderly. So it's highly unlikely that many horrible people care "to re-evaluate their priorities and values", as u mentioned. They have no compunction about hurting others.
@@exas4791 True there are bad people and great when AI can do it, but I mean it like, when care will be done by people who value caring, not because they need the money (when there's UBI for example)
As AI is complimented by robotics no job is immune. I could see human existence eventually devolving to exclusively servicing AI in some way in the future. STEM? Why would we need thinkers?
Ai overall will likely not subtract jobs from the jobs market but it will eliminate positions and the thing is supporting Ai in the marketplace will require more jobs than it replaces. With as much productivity it brings in people will need to figure out where the new frontiers are to explore and all those new areas need humans to understand them before Ai can chew on them. Oddly, one of the things it I think it will be best at is replacing management and C suite jobs and everyone it seems most worried about low level jobs. The problem that I see Ai stumbling with is full company to product or service knowledge.
What do you think a truck driver or a cashier at supermarket can do, when their job is taken by AI/robots? In the industrial revolution, tasks requiring physical strength were taken over by machines, and humans shifted to cognitive/service jobs. When cognitive tasks can be done by AI, what can humans shift to? There is some scope for emotional and human care, but is it enough for 8-10 billion humans?
@@Jedimaster36091 Just as we use our phones and computers as an extra brain for everyday use, while jobs in companies will definitely go away thus cutting the size of companies, all the displaced will be armed with AI and robotics to create new ideas and start businesses of their own. I think we will see many new ideas coming to market and many new one-person or small businesses. So we will see an explosion in many new things we haven't seen before and have a vibrant economy for everyone. Just like the internet came and created a whole new form of wealth for many, I see AI doing the same thing. We humans have adapted for a very long time. That said, it gets ugly before it gets better.
Go to a blue collar career. It will take longer for those jobs to go away as there are many other factors outside of just software (safety, environment, etc…). What I mean by this is look at Tesla and how long it’s taking to have the car actually work decent. There are a ton of safety concerns and outside variables that have to be accounted for in order for a safe product
What would really be nice if Elon could make a robot to my specifications and it look just like me, sell it to me at a reasonable price. I could then have it go to work in my place, and do all the task that is required of me. While all of this is happening, im on the lake with a fishing pole!😊
This guys is super rich. He doesnt care. I work as a system engineer. My job is pretty complexed, but i feel bad for the low level IT. my bosses are outsourcing Tier 1. We need fight back and vote trump vance 2024! Latinos para trump.
00:01 AI will lead to a massive productivity boost and create new job roles.
02:13 AI is disrupting job roles like call center operations and sales back office.
06:31 AI requires responsible and safe usage with training.
08:37 AI technology continues to improve, reducing error rates and increasing usability over time.
13:04 Disruptive technology is creating new powerful companies, particularly in the cloud business.
15:08 Open-sourcing AI provides free tools for innovation and independence from proprietary platforms.
18:53 Consider using multiple providers for AI implementation to optimize solutions.
20:25 Discussion about semiconductor shortage and progress of AMD and Intel
23:51 More intelligence in the world is better for progress and open source is a positive contribution.
25:31 The fear around AI's impact on humanity is diminishing, focusing on concrete applications and regulation.
29:16 Corporations are enthusiastic about AI, and non-technical understanding unlocks brainstorming.
31:11 AI automation can improve productivity and allow focus on other tasks.
Is this AI generated =)
wow this legit saved mah life 🙏
@@jameslai6879sometimes AI is useful 😂
I tutor Python online. Last year: $1200/month. So far this year: $200/month. Fortunately I’m not heavily dependent on that income, but I imagine some tutors are. Or were.
Why not create a AI course for Python, and only have people ask you questions? Also too many people in software, not enough peolpe are doing hardware. We need to improve robotics and assembly, imagine if we had billions of tiny robots, you could easily develop robotics by testing different types of configurations and if one robot didn't work you can jump to the next tiny robot. This requires us to build robots that build smaller robots out of clay or 3D printing or inject molding so those smaller robots can make even smaller robots. Then you can control those robot hands with your own hands using VR controller with touch feedback, and it would record your hand interactions and then play it back to build other robots so you can have millions of robots, then you can test different things on the robots and if it causes the robot to get destroyed to to "trip over" you can jump to other robots.
I've been a dev for a while (since 2005) and I still take online courses to keep up to date, or just practice. I recently bought a course for a topic I wanted to brush up on and noticed something. I wasn't learning anything because I had on co pilot and it was auto filling in a lot. I turned it off and it was learning like usual again. The thing I noticed is that it was a course where the repo was public, so it was pulling in a good amount of correct stuff, however, at first I was just accepting most of the stuff and realized that a bunch of what it was doing was wrong. It's only because I knew what I was doing + looking for I was able to debug. That is when I turned it off and realized that I can use this for some boilerplate and to explain issues in chat format that were too hard to google. And of course it's good for courses, but at work it's helpful but not amazing yet. I'm sure it will get there, but not sure when. Hoping my house is paid off before that happens though 😂
It's time to teach janitors to use AI old man
@@aoeu256"AI course for python" is such a blanket statement. You do realize that what you call Artificial Intelligence is just a bevy of algorithms that stem from statistics, probability theory, calculus and algebra, right? Do you know how hard it is to have a good grasp of all that?
Just look at the stats for developer roles in the job market. Its crashed since 2022. Tech industry over hired for 3 years and needs to revert to the mean. AI simply helps developers fail faster.
I have a lot of respect for Andrew Ng, but I've been seeing a lot of doublespeak from people in the field recently, with the phrasing of "it can replace humans in certain kinds of work" swapped with "it just does tasks". It sounds more diplomatic. Lots of AI people don't want to outright say that they would think it would make everyone happier in the long run if we replaced almost the whole shebang. I mean I think we would be happier.
It would make these AI scientists rich while widen inequality overall, hence the doublespeak, as always :)
@@ychickshateme11they would be getting rich but so too would we as a society with productivity gains.
@@bsgvlog5640 societal productivity gains don't put groceries on the table for the single mom in Akron though.
Doublespeak? Without an example? Seems like you disagree and you you want them to agree with you.
Mainly I mean that many AI advocates who are in a position of high influence are saying that they don't want to replace most jobs, but in the long run I think most AI advocates do want to replace most jobs, including myself. It's like a compromise in the form of a skewed truth, because they don't want to scare people. A small lie to shift the overton window a little bit.@@JayDee-b5u
Consider carefully the implications of AI replacing tasks that a person does on a routine basis. This does not mean each person will keep their job and just do more interesting higher level work. It really means fewer people will be utilized to do the same amount of work or even more work. Productivity will mean a pool of 10 people will be reduced to 1 or 2 doing the same amount of work currently being done now, just differently.
This reminds me very much of my early office experience and what I witnessed with the introduction of personal computing and later the dawn of the internet. When I started work, each executive in my company had a secretary. There were also file clerks supporting the C-suite. The support staff numbered 20 in a company with about 15 executives. This was 1989. Within a decade the File Clerks were gone and rather than each executive having a secretary, only the CEO had a dedicated individual, the rest of the VPs and Senior VPs shared individuals - usually 3 or 4 executives to a single secretary or AA. Today, the pool of assistants is even smaller. One AA still is dedicated to the CEO, but only 1 or 2 AAs service the remaining 14 executives. How did this happen? Word processing, scheduling software, online travel bookings, voice mail, the collapse of dictation and inter-office memos replaced by first email and then messaging, later zoom, etc.. So, bottom line -- YES, tasks will be eliminated just as they predict. But what they aren't saying is that JOBS will be eliminated as well. Using my Administrative Assistant example, you will end up with 1 person currently doing the job of 5 or 10 people. Those other jobs aren't being replaced. You don't need as many people when the AI can do so many tasks. So, where a factory once needed 500 people, it might need only 15 or 20 in future to monitor the equipment and machines. You can apply this across many other industries. The biggest problem up to this point has been the loss of 'entry-level' middle class work. By that I mean jobs that needed some education and provided a small toe-hold in the middle class with white collar work -- basically desk work in a nice office with modest pay, health benefits and maybe a 401K. Not a huge salary, but not physical labor. Now, however, we are looking at AI moving UP the food chain in skills, destroying not just the AA jobs but middle management and eventually the COO, the CFO and all the accountants, plus even the CIO and all his or her minions, leaving maybe a small team of say 2 or 3 executives (wild guess) plus 1 support person, and all other humans in the org being either replaced and reduced to a handful monitoring the machines. We are looking at massive income inequality, the final collapse of the lower, middle and even upper middle class and the emergence of a small hyper-rich cognitive elite. That's the short term. Long term?? Who knows.
The final piece of the puzzle here is this conundrum. While technology has spawned a host of new jobs, those jobs have required an increasingly high level of cognitive ability and education. Unfortunately our population only has a limited pool of people with IQs that can continue to acquire skills at a rate fast enough to adjust, adapt and do those jobs. Bottom line: Society needs to find work for a lot of people (at least the middle 60% of the population) that have only upper middle, middle and lower middle IQs. What are these folks going to do? Sure, physical labor is possible for some, but not all, and the real hit will be to the group of people that are 'average or above average' in intelligence but not smart enough to adapt. These are the people that 50 years ago would have ended up in middle management or some respectable, but not senior role in an organization. They are going to be wiped out and impoverished.
I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. This is case and point why we need to head towards UBI
this assessment is so true. we keep hearing that AI will create new jobs. yes it will, but its clear to anyone who is paying attention it can destroy many more jobs than the new ones it creates.
its honestly extremely hard to even imagine what common people and even people with moderately above average IQs will do in a world where an AI agent is vastly superior at doing any task.
You're forgetting that this couldn't possibly come to pass because without people with incomes, you don't have a business. If no one buys, you don't sell. You COULDN'T have a tiny elite with everything. There would be a balancing point between employment and profit growth. No one knows where that is, though.
@@andreww.8262 we are not really diving in that deeper.
Maybe, if they reach sufficiently reliable levels of intelligence, capitalism will cease to exist.
Maybe true communism will be the only way, if you as a person can't add sufficient value back in the society.
UBI, or distribution of recourses is basically communism, right?!
ATMs replaced bank tellers. Groceries stores have self checkout.
Get used to it. Find something to use your brain. AI can't replace that and never really will as it's not a human
Andrew is so reasonable, but it seems like he's really doubling down on normalcy bias.
@@sussysaullarge scale change IS normal, look at the internet revolution over the last 30 years.
yes, but that took 30 years. A.I. development is moving extremly fast. we might have AGI within the next 5 years, thats if we dont have it already...(you familiar with the speculation around Q-star?)
@@bsgvlog5640
Some technologies do create far more jobs than they eliminate but I think AI is a different beast. I am seeing more negatives than positives when it comes to the job market.
yup, this time its different. A.I. will destroy millions of jobs...I mean look at Sora...Hollywood and anything similar is dead
the issue most people in the AI and economic sector don't see or don't want to acknowledge is that the destructive creation of Schumpeter is working only as long as the tech created is able to be used by the average man, that's not the case at all with AI, only the smartest people can use it and it will delete on a large scale jobs that were done by the average man and even a little over the average which will create a destructive imbalance in soociety I think.
I disagree. We are not seeing the advent of AI means in the future every person is a business owner with their AI employees. If more people can understand this and the potential they have in terms of their domain knowledge (this could be geographical, social) and understand that we need to move away from thinking like an employee, and building skills in order to get a job but rather build skills that are difficult for machines to develop, we will be ok.
If anything, I think the AI revolution will require humans to be more human rather than to be more like machines.
@@clarencelam1765 look around at the state of the world. This IS exactly how humans are. Take gooooood look: our true human nature status, power, money, vanity, greed, and it is never enough. Oh yeah. And why, we never make it to AGI/ASI. Humans will destroy each other weilding and swinging this giant thigh bone of a new technology tool around like a two year old, the disruption and destruction of lives and lively hoods be damned. For the greater good of course. Oh yeah, perhaps Oprah, Elon, Sam Altman, and Tom Cruise will be the only humans left, hanging out in their compounds on Maui. Rest of us, don't even get Festivus. Hunger Games contestants perhaps, but that would become boring to them fairly quickly, they'd cancel the show, and let us commoners all die out.
"customer service people can just change into doctorates of AI from universities and apply for positions that require you to have a doctorate in AI, whats the problem?"
(content loudness -22.7dB) please normalize the audio volume to closer to 0 db
My thoughts exactly
Yes please.
I thought it was my problem lol
Why can't TH-cam automate this after all these years?
Of course he's gonna say AI isn't harmful he's one of the biggest supporters of it
He explicitly stated that it can be harmful
I hope that’s not the only thing you get from his speech.
@@takyon97his perspective is very useful but can only be considered alongside a diverse group of experts
@@zabrak999do you have the time when he said that? He may have said that but I didn't have that takeaway after listening to it in entirety
@@luyaomawhy would you say that? A feeble attempt to knock down someone's opinion you do not favor
A robot that's as smart as a human can be taught to do any job that a human can do. How does that NOT lead to the massive displacement of humans from the labor force?
the humans will own these robots and let other AI-enabled software manage them. The future is in entrepreneurship for all
@@clarencelam1765 people with capital will. the laborers won't.
"efficiency" and "productivity" are just the gentle terms management uses to justify layoffs
Dont forget ” streamline”
Brilliant as always. Ng is one of the giants of ML.
It’s true that ML researchers don’t know how to build superhuman AI. Today. But Ng sees no end in sight to the stacked S curves of innovation ahead. It’s not unreasonable to wonder if we could land in a dangerous place within 5-20 years. The eye rolling is beneath this great man.
My take - S-curves by their nature are not dangerous things. Humanity today stands on top of 1000's of historical S-curves. The only thing that is dangerous is a runaway exponential curve, and Andrew is pretty much the only guy saying "Not going to happen" because saying Exponential--->OMG--->AGI--->Matrix gets anyone free press.
Once we can manufacture intelligence, it's hard to imagine what would be the barriers that generate new S-curves. Have a hard physics problem? Just manufacture 1000 Einstein's and get them to work together. We can all speculate about what such a world would look like but it's probably like residents of Sentinel island trying to understand what it's like to live in Tokyo.
Why did he leave google?
@@sonicwave02
Wikipedia is your friend.
Ai is inherently pointed at removing jobs. We need to think about the permanent loss of jobs and how to redustribute wealth and benefits accumumated from AI when working class humans become unemployable.
Yes
Why are we making conclusions without any governmental data showing job loss? 2023 Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers didn't show any big changes.
@@dibbidydoo4318 That's not necessary, if you use your brain you'll see it before that data comes through.
Don't worry we'll have UBI
@@krox477 That's not a solution you actually want, that just let's the elite control everything, own all the capital and now that capital is forever in their hands while you get a 0.0001% of what it produces.
Feels like he's is desperately trying not to scare anyone....It is up to ours leaders to make sure we manage the transition? God help us all....
Love Andrew!🤟🤟🤟🤟
Excellent conversation!
Thank you for sharing this insightful discussion!
new technology will always make us more productive, create jobs, destroy others - but I think the no. of jobs lost will outnumber the no. of jobs created.
There are still many hundreds of thousands of jobs that will need to be filled even in an AI future. Nurses, teachers, bus drivers, trades people.
Not interested in those who are bullish on AI explaining how it won’t effect regular people. Their interests are not our interests.
What do you mean? Do you know the amount of job roles in existence right now that were not even a thing just 10 or 15 years ago?? Your job is NOT your job! You do not OWN it. This narrative really annoys me. Grow up, man! Augment yourself with NEW knowledge and NEW skills. You owe it to yourself.
(parttime) jobs that many women do (f.e. admin, receptionist, customer service, call center jobs) are at risk of being completely replaced by AI soon.
Agreed ...because, in general, as much as I will be hated by the woke crowd for saying this, women usually (not always) lack objectivity and creativity in natural sciences because this requires abstract thinking. Nothing inherently good or bad about it, after all, they make up for that in their genius in emotional intelligence. And this is not my observation alone, throughout the history, the philosophers have come to the same conclusion. Look at Schopenhauer's essay on women.
Yup...Its crazy what we are witnessing
@@harperdada7344 Your view about gender is so outdated that an opposing view imo wouldn't be 'woke' but 'up to date'. Also in former times there were lots of female computer programmers f.e.. There's an interesting article about that in the NYT titled: The Secret History of Women in Coding.
@geaca3222 it's not my "views," it's my observation based on what I saw in this world ..and thanks for quoting "NYT"...goes to show where you are getting your theories from ...
The NYT article is an example of women's history which largely is unknown to men and even most women. societies have been brainwashed with outdated concepts. so live and let live, don't put your prejudices on other people. Or start your own thread or blog about your view of women. @@harperdada7344
Good coursera plug
Very pacifying, but I think in reality we will see new companies spring up in each sector which completely obliterate 'human heavy' conventional businesses.
For example, a handful of film makers using AI will bring out blockbuster quality films which overnight send Disney out of business. Not entirely an exaggeration.
exactly. there will be millions of 1-person business with 100 ai "employees". the issue is they won't hire people. and lots of people don't have the bandwidth or drive or knowledge or intelligence or willpower to create a business. they will definitely have no job
@@joelalain I tend to align with your view. Already a part of social media consumers are bots, so it's not far fetched to imagine new businesses with no employees and producing goods/services for other AI systems. A completely new economic branch which does not involve humans.
Unfortunately, the case is exactly the opposite... Big companies with their huge leverage and capital power will buy large data centres (think NVidia data factories) and large amounts of energy for cheaper due to economies of scale to run their vision and LLM models at a massive scale for a fraction of the cost.
I am an a tech consultant at at fortune 100 and I can tell you that the management is uninterested in my ideas to utilize AI throughout the business. I’m not sure how exactly you become an “AI consultant”, but I do wonder if there is much demand for it.
They will wake up soon. But they don't admit they were wrong. It is what it is
The management makes a living by actually runing business not by dreaming like these people.
sadly the future is unemployment for most, but AI salesmen and employers can't just come out and say it.
if you're a working class individual, wake up. you are the horse, they're the car, and if you don't speak up.
look at history, looks at what happens to those who become "useless", don't wait till there is no bargaining power in your hands.
All it means is people will have to transition to more important work. Instead of answering phone calls all day people might go work in a hospital or school. We desperately need folks to pick up a hammer and build houses or do improvement products.
Tech entrepreneurs like Andrew Ng who are concerned about the impacts of AI on the labour force should instead think about the removal of the compulsion of labour on people to earn thier lively hood by making the masses aware of the tremendous AI productivity. AGI will be far more capable of generating economic resources for an universal, unconditional, guaranteed Basic Income or UBI replace the exploitative wage-labour that will unleash the enormous potential benefits of the AI to the society.
I think we’re seeing a massive (often accidental) gaslighting campaign. You can’t automate all the jobs yet, and until that becomes possible companies want as many potential workers are possible, as always. In order for those workers and potential workers to keep throwing themselves into the grind, they need to believe there’s a future to their job and that the current paradigm is indefinite
@@lucacarey9366 Of course, it is very difficult to automate some of the human work or jobs. However when most of the job demands gone in couple of decades and the wages replaced by UBI, all the human work have to become voluntary work out of love or concerns or self work, not the exploitative wage labour.
@@lucacarey9366 I have also been perplexed by the statements I see coming out of people like Ng (I'm a huge fan, his Coursera AI course one of the best classes I've ever taken). The Venn diagram of superior human capability with regard to automation is shrinking rapidly, is seems obvious how this plays out over the next 5-10 years. I tend to think that a lot of these people truly want to believe that this will be akin to other past technically-driven revolutions (e.g., printing press, steam, IT). It reminds me of the old quote, "it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism"... Though this isn't a great fit as this is all about capital crowding out labor.
Entrepreneurs like Andrew are selling their product without thinking about the societal consequences. I don't believe they even consider it as "part of their responsibility". They assume the governments will deal with the consequences and figure some solutions.
The AI profits go to the companies. The government will not tax them because of campaign finance and lobbying. You will just get a repeat of the end of the railway era where the barons owned nearly everything and nobody else owned a dime. A New Deal 2 will eventually come but the last one took about a 100 years and two World Wars before it got passed.
This guy asked great questions
Fantastic interview - love hearing Andrew's take on these topics - world class.
Brilliant man, always inspiring!
I love this guy great sales pitch ...plug and buy...
All these VC and C-suite level talks seem to miss the bigger picture of job "loss" which to me is about economic disenfranchisement rather than the relatively shallow question of "will jobs exist/will I still have mine?" There's a lot of talk of whether we'll still have things for people to do but not what will the power dynamic between employer and employee be in a post-ai enhanced workforce. Personally I have a very hard time seeing it as anything other than a cheapening of labor and an even faster rate of growing wealth inequality.
Much of the trend I'm seeing with this LLM "accelerated" work seems to be about "lowering the barrier" and "democratizing" any sort of work. These are positive spins on it but if you dig deeper this can also be phrased as "removing professional moats". By removing the need to hire a professional artist to produce an ad you've lowered the cost of the ad, economically disenfranchised the artist, and rendered any artistic training an AI product can produce net-economically negative (and this could be applied anywhere from tech to law to medicine). Certainly this won't be all of the work, but it's by in large targeting professional white collared workers moats and replaces it with jobs that have a much lower one.
Imagine a scenario where say 4x productivity in each knowledge domain reduces expert staffing need to 25% of previous levels and to replace the previous expert jobs the company hires with just as many people as "entry-level prompt engineers". Will the moat for such a position be high enough for the prompt engineers to have any bargaining power? Will the now flooded market of the disenfranchised professional be able to sustain the same type of life? Certainly they could leave their position go home and apply to several thousand newly minted 'ai-enhanced jobs' but why would a corporation bother to compensate anyone for popular work with a low barrier to entry?
There's a lot of talk about this reskilling but not what a worker's moat would look like in this scenario. It's most executives' dream come true to be able to free their company from all highly compensated folks and rehire at minimum wage and pocket the difference. I don't think we'll see anything to this extreme but I think these tools by and large moves the needle in that direction. As we "democratize" all skilled work the economic employer/employee relations sustained by scarcity of skill will dissipate and leave behind a richer CEO and a poorer city.
TLDR: seems like a great time to have a lot of money, you'll probably make a lot more. Not so great if you rely on skills to be compensated
When will AI start to pay tax ?
AI doesn't require social and healthcare services, doesn't need education and the police, doesn't need roads to travel, so we pay for AI so that our products get cheaper, that's the idea anyway. They used to complain about unemployed horsemen, later they lined up for driving jobs. The next generation would certainly have to get into robotics and software development, it's us who find it intimidating, but the kids are embracing this.
I'd be a bit surprised if product prices do get cheaper because for now basic necessities have only increased@@fedorbutochnikow5312
@@fedorbutochnikow5312 I think that part of the fear is that new technology is scary. At the start of the Twentieth Century, people were afraid of telephones and cars but they were perfectly normal for people who were born after 1900. Thirty years ago some people were afraid of personal computers and cell phones but now they are perfectly normal. So AGI may be scary now, but in thirty years it will be perfectly normal to the robot babies being built.
To say it will not be significant job loss is dishonest.
we have no evidence of that. The BLS labor studies for 2023 hasn't really seen big changes that might lead to significant job loss.
@@dibbidydoo4318we have no evidence of black hole destroying Earth, but if one appeared would you want to leave it or not?
@@dibbidydoo4318 It is a risk assessment, not based on evidence. Consider that NASA is investing in asteroid deflection research, when we may never need it. But the risk is way to big to ignore it. The same can be said about the AI - it may never happen, but if it does, the risk may be too great to ignore.
@@dibbidydoo4318 We have no evidence that an extinction level asteroid is going to crash into Earth in the next 1000 years, but NASA is still preparing for the eventuality. It is about risk management. AI has a significant risk of destroying the civilization as we know it (I am not talking about Terminator).
You talking about A.I. or the invention of the tractor or car?😂😂
“People that use AI will replace others that don’t.”
No. A.i. will replace every job eventually. my friend, AGI is not a joke...
Job is collection of tasks
No. Job is collection of task + collection of non-tasks like duties. AI can't have lunch with one of your major customers.
But if the major customer doesn’t have employees because of robots and AI, you don’t have anybody to have lunch with hehehe 😂
@@michaelnurse9089sounds like a distinction without a difference for most jobs.
What’s the name of this reporter? How do I follow him?
I don't think we should be afraid of AI in the sense of replicating killer robots like Terminators. Rather I ask the following question: What is the one of the most dangerous things we already have on Earth? Dictators are holding back humanity and what is worse than a human dictator? *Dictator AI* that want to rule over humanity forever. A terrifying though.
What's missing is a full brain interface to comunicate directly with any AI model instead of using smartphones. Maybe have a LLM like ChatGPT break down the work into tasks and have specialized AI models do each task. A protocol for models to share their experience between them would also help.
Consider all the workers globally who offer their skills on freelancing platforms for things like copywriting, graphic design , research etc. AI can do many of these roles at a junior to mid level now. I’m sure I heard an interview with Andrew where he suggests that a universal global wage should’ve considered by governments. I wonder if his policy advisors and media people have asked him to role back on some of his statements
1:52“...what will happen is not that AI will replace people,but people that use AI will replace other people that don't.”
great questions. amazing answers. 👏
Andrew Ng’s description of radiologists’ work actually aligns more with other professionals, mostly technicians and other physicians like emergency doctors.
what about the people who take low skill jobs to get medical benefits or a little extra cache, or something to get out of the house, to feel like they are doing something positive or people with disabilities that are limited where these jobs offer some social connection and self worth. Simple extra income or social service will not take up role of these jobs. The unintended consequences can be a large group of disenfranchised and isolated people.
Can automation of this type create a issue between supply side and demand
Can AI automation exacerbate inequality and concentration of wealth.
There has rarely been an invention or discovery which has significantly increased the human race’s ability to achieve greater convenience, productivity or performance, which has not also eventually led to detrimental consequences
One negative effect of AI that I am experiencing as a software engineer is that the technology leaders have really bought into the idea that productivity must increase 50 to 100% with chatGPT. However, since realistically our current technologies only improve productivity by perhaps 20 to 30% even with the most thoughtful prompt engineering skills, all that extra expected productivity gains must be met by simply working longer hours and weekends. With the current state of the economy, tech employment feels like a priviledge, so it is time to bring out the shirts that say "90 Hrs/Week and Loving It" and be happy, or else!
"AI is not going to replace people, people using AI is going to replace people" ❤
Yeah, one dude with AI will render obsolete few other dudes. There are limited amount of work that should be done...
Oh yeah, this guy is a totally impartial, objective source. LOL
I can spend hours listening to this guy.
20:20 never mind, we'll use 20x fewer LPU's for inference.
1:54 big one
This time is different.. ai is ubiquitous. It doesn't just replace once sector like in agriculture, it can be applied to everything we do an even can't do now. This is why there will be mass unemployment, not just a transition hiccup as in the past.
If that happens, we can all happily retire and enjoy our lives because, by assumption, robots will keep the society productive on our behalf.
@@Thefare1234 Another possible outcome is something like in the movie Elysium, where there's two societal classes, the minority ones who have everything, has isolated itself from the rest of the world, has its own economy, army etc., and the vast majority who lives in poverty and has no means to produce anything. Based on our history, I see this outcome more probable than utopia you described.
@@Jedimaster36091 I doubt it'll be like Elysium. Robots doing things on our behalf is likely to be an abundant resource, more so than waiting 18 years or more for a productive workforce. You're looking at something that anyone can build anywhere, whenever they need it. This means anyone can have anything, especially if AI helps advance technologies like fusion, vertical or underground farming, and desalinisation plants. At that point, because each of them can be built anywhere, there is no incentive to keep those technologies to yourself. Anyone can build a self-sufficient community anywhere, and this protects the ones who "have everything" because each of us can be left alone.
@@cody4rock I wish it'd be as you say, but I am afraid it wouldn't. First, robots "do things" for their owners. As factories are going to scale up the use of robots to produce goods, and AI to "produce" services, the human employment is going to scale down. I am not sure who will make the consumer base who can afford to buy these "abundance of products and services", if there is mass unemployment. So far, AFAIK, no one has publicly addressed this concern. My assumption is that the robot owners (aka companies) will not be interested (nor equipped) in solving this society issue, and keep focusing on "follow the money". Which is why I suspect a parallel economy where products/services are traded between the AI systems, could appear.
Surely this comment is meant as satire. @@Thefare1234
The reason we dont pay as much attention to the application is its difficulty to reach monopoly. While there will only be a few OpenAI, there will be tens of thousands of office agents helping you boost productivity in all kinds of edge scenarios.
Thus, from a revenue and value standpoint, they will be important for society. But from a business perspective, those small businesses combined will not generate merely as much profit as OpenAI
Depends on competition. TH-cam have never made money. Creators on TH-cam has made money. This is because TH-cam has no moat other than running at a loss.
What is the point of having a CEO in a post AI world? That seems like the most obvious position that will be relegated as completely useless.
“Task” = 1 Drink
He's talking about the very short term. If you assume strong AGI, which I think is on the 5 year horizon, there is no job AGI can't do faster and better than a human, including dreaming up capital investment opportunities.
I think a lot of people that promote AI just don't want to admit to the public that it will commoditize intelligence.
bro makes bukoo bucks from AI consulting gigs
talkin' his own book lika a motha
This Ng smart
"AI will not replace people, people using AI will replace other people" so AI will replace people 🙄
Universal basic income while restructuring labour system isn't a bad I idea, I think.
"Safety"
AI generated images have already destroyed my stock footage portfolio that I spent years building. AI will give corporations the tools to finally get rid of anyone not in the C suite.
no customer services, no assemble manufacturing jobs, no scrub nurses and other low skills labor forces, what else most people would end up of doing except investors, ceo, managerial positions, politicians and journalists.
Drugs, alcohol then overdose or suicide. Interesting times ahead...
Bet this guy doesn't do his own grocery shopping.
Job urgently impacted: TH-cam summarizer.
"will the increased productivity be translated into bigger wages for workers?"
"umm..."
UBI is coming ALSO..
Not going to happen until AI will make 60% of workers jobless. Transition period will be rough...
Wer ist auch hier von der Integralrechnung Playlist von Daniel Jung?
White collar never cared when equipment replaced blue collar workers.
Now that white collar works will be replaced by AI, it's a concern.
It's naive to think that, once businesses are able to use AI to automate tasks (rather than jobs) business won't reduce headcount. Labour is one of the most expensive aspects of running any business.
Invest everything you can because in 30 years you’ll be on UBI. There won’t be much left a robot can’t do better faster cheaper and they’ll be smarter than you
Often think it is for better labor.
If AI and its robots do not replace jobs in the market, that would be a disappointment for those who throw billions in it. That is how they can make a return.
Im not sure how big companies will survive and male profits if people start losing jobs because of AI. Though I agree not all jobs will gone but it will definetly impact and not everybody can scale up and start learning AI skills.
❤
Your volume is too low
How many people think Andrew NG is the Angel of A.I.
Please don't render Gen A.I for medical diagnosis which makes 2:26 2:29 us irresponsible
Have AI do jobs like taking care of the elderly who are vulnerable to abuse and / or neglect.
And/or maybe the AI-paradigm shift will cause societies to re-evaluate their priorities and values
@geaca3222 There r videos showing how maids and caregivers cruelly treat children and the elderly.
So it's highly unlikely that many horrible people care "to re-evaluate their priorities and values", as u mentioned.
They have no compunction about hurting others.
@@exas4791 True there are bad people and great when AI can do it, but I mean it like, when care will be done by people who value caring, not because they need the money (when there's UBI for example)
As AI is complimented by robotics no job is immune. I could see human existence eventually devolving to exclusively servicing AI in some way in the future. STEM? Why would we need thinkers?
Ai overall will likely not subtract jobs from the jobs market but it will eliminate positions and the thing is supporting Ai in the marketplace will require more jobs than it replaces. With as much productivity it brings in people will need to figure out where the new frontiers are to explore and all those new areas need humans to understand them before Ai can chew on them. Oddly, one of the things it I think it will be best at is replacing management and C suite jobs and everyone it seems most worried about low level jobs. The problem that I see Ai stumbling with is full company to product or service knowledge.
What do you think a truck driver or a cashier at supermarket can do, when their job is taken by AI/robots? In the industrial revolution, tasks requiring physical strength were taken over by machines, and humans shifted to cognitive/service jobs. When cognitive tasks can be done by AI, what can humans shift to? There is some scope for emotional and human care, but is it enough for 8-10 billion humans?
@@Jedimaster36091 Just as we use our phones and computers as an extra brain for everyday use, while jobs in companies will definitely go away thus cutting the size of companies, all the displaced will be armed with AI and robotics to create new ideas and start businesses of their own. I think we will see many new ideas coming to market and many new one-person or small businesses. So we will see an explosion in many new things we haven't seen before and have a vibrant economy for everyone. Just like the internet came and created a whole new form of wealth for many, I see AI doing the same thing. We humans have adapted for a very long time. That said, it gets ugly before it gets better.
Go to a blue collar career. It will take longer for those jobs to go away as there are many other factors outside of just software (safety, environment, etc…). What I mean by this is look at Tesla and how long it’s taking to have the car actually work decent. There are a ton of safety concerns and outside variables that have to be accounted for in order for a safe product
My job is blue collar and they are replacing most of us with robots.
I would think jobs that require a human touch would be better. Such as teaching and nursing.
He is not a visionary thinker. Just talking without thinking. 😅
Andrew Ngr
You should delete this
@@wege8409 you should stop policing people around
Remember just a few years ago they said learn to code, now AI can do low level coding.
I would say at least half of white collar jobs will disappear.
I would support him for president for year 3000. By that time, his prediction could be reality. But now we have many unfilled jobs, don't need him.
customer service went down hill there is no human service
Who is Evan, and why should he be freed?
I thought that was his 'pronoun' since these media outlets embrace this culture.
What would really be nice if Elon could make a robot to my specifications and it look just like me, sell it to me at a reasonable price. I could then have it go to work in my place, and do all the task that is required of me. While all of this is happening, im on the lake with a fishing pole!😊
Woah he's wearing jacket over the blue shirt
Is he a labor expert?
This guys is super rich. He doesnt care. I work as a system engineer. My job is pretty complexed, but i feel bad for the low level IT. my bosses are outsourcing Tier 1. We need fight back and vote trump vance 2024! Latinos para trump.
Nothings changed
LOL we're screwed!
AI makes mistakes like humans? humans are not machines. imagine if sometimes the fridge just randomly stopped cooling overnight
does he have Bell's Palsy?
I think your right. He may have it- would explain why one side of his face is more fluid than the other half
Be more fearful of AI making digital, physical & crypto currency irrelevant….
“Some”
Hah!
Lying or uneducated.
Most likely former.
Big Liar. This is insane too lie like that. Politicians are horrible and the interviewer should be replaced by AI!
I am worried about ai taking over job
AI is going to be the death of the middle class
Proper AI to me may be more reliable than……………
All AI customers services tell you sorry don’t understand
Hey legacy paper media, as you try to enter into the digital era, maybe look at how to balance audio. Your audio on this content was garbage.