3

At a time when technology was just advanced enough to be able to automate the work of a traditional teacher. Which career field will replace those lost to fit the new technology landscape? With the world context is when businesses and governments use machines to replace human labor. At that time, the operating and maintaining costs of machines are significantly cheaper than hiring workers.

Mido
  • 287
  • 2
  • 8
  • 1
    Do you mean that all jobs, literally all jobs (including illegal ones and pink-collar jobs), got automated away? – KarmaPeasant Jul 07 '21 at 04:47
  • 3
    "What kind of work would be complex and difficult enough to still require human operation?" Do you mean old jobs that survived mass automation? – KarmaPeasant Jul 07 '21 at 05:35
  • I think you can ask yourself what will still be popular. I think arts and designing or at least wishing for things will still be popular. Perhaps that will be the jobs. A bit like guided tours maybe, but maybe they involve weirder things like going to the bottom of the ocean or things that are hard today. – Emil Jul 07 '21 at 05:48
  • 2
    VTC:Opinion-Based. The [help/dont-ask] states, "To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where every answer is equally valid [or] you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question." This is also too broad, failing the book test (there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of job classifications... and you want us to pick...). Unless you define completely and specifically the jobs taken over by AI and define thoroughly what "AI" means, there is no way for anyone to answer that isn't just an opinion at best... a guess at worst. – JBH Jul 07 '21 at 06:45
  • @user161005 That's right, that's what I meant. I also thought about things like Emil said, but it still has a lot of contradictions when placed in a hypothetical future. I also edited the question to make it clearer. – Mido Jul 07 '21 at 07:40
  • There is an entire famous and fascinating series of books about the far future when intelligent machines run the world: Iain Banks's Culture series. (That's where SpaceX picked the names of its autonomous spaceport drone ships Of Course I Still Love You etc.) The answer is, humans don't do all that much, and that is the entire point. But a more immediately important point is that you are asking us to imagine your world for you. – AlexP Jul 07 '21 at 07:59
  • Wrong question. Jobs are means of survivial of societies, humans as a kind, if there no need for them - can we relax at once, after a million years of survivial and nexessity? Can we focus on hobbyies and things we interested and like to do? Just be driven by curiousity and not necessity? – MolbOrg Jul 07 '21 at 09:36
  • 1
    VTO that is an important, and poorly researched topic, in public discourse. It easy to imagine dystopia, than a better system it is a real problem exactly on venue of sci-fi and societies building. There sure are many possibilities how things can be developed, but not necessarly(not only) because of opinions - it just that there are many options. That maybe a border case, but it a legit question. Same as UBI there are opinions, but also there are ratiinales how and why. – MolbOrg Jul 07 '21 at 09:51
  • 2
    Doctors are considered as a high skill job, as can be law enforcement in certain scenarios. If robots can fully and efficiently replace all doctors they can most likely replace lawyers, drivers, maids, caretakers, teachers accountants, potentially soldiers, fast food workers and the list goes on. The best bet now is to assume most remaining jobs will revolve around preventing mass unemployment and maintenance of the machines. This is a bit too opinion based. How capable are the robots? How much did technology advance? Do the governments care about causing mass unemployment? – ProjectApex Jul 07 '21 at 12:27
  • Does this answer your question? Is there any job that can't be automated? – Escaped dental patient. Jul 07 '21 at 13:41
  • 1
    @ARogueAnt. This question asks about new non-automated jobs. This is a subjective question, but with just a bit of editing, it can be turned into a good subjective question which are welcomed on SE. – Otkin Jul 07 '21 at 19:47
  • 2
    You should consider editing your question to limit it only to new jobs and making it more in line with guidelines for good subjective questions. It will be easier to reopen this question then. It is a really good one. – Otkin Jul 07 '21 at 19:51
  • 1
    Please don't edit your question in a way which invalidates existing answers, rather, ask a new question (not a duplicate) which addresses your concerns. (It would also be helpful in this case if you were to tell us about your world - supply "worldbuiding context"). – Escaped dental patient. Jul 08 '21 at 02:07

2 Answers2

5

I think you need to take a step backwards in your thinking. Rather than question what jobs will replace those which are lost, you should ask something more fundamental... Why do we work?

Throughout human history, people have worked to magnify the natural bounty of the world up to a level where it meets the needs of all. The primary purpose of work is to fill needs, both personal and societal, which are not inherently filled without such effort.

We plant and harvest food because without such effort, there is not enough food for all of us to survive the long winters. But we do not invest any effort in creating breathable air because until recent years, there has been no lack of such airs in quantities which exceeded the needs of all.

We are already well adapted to living in the presence of resource which do not require work to acquire. The age of automation (which heralds the arrival of the age of post-scarcity) is a time when more of the fundamental needs of life can be added to that list of workless acquisitions.

This is of course an extremely incomplete simplification of the process. In a perfect world, those who control the automation would recognize their opportunity to change the world and willingly bring an end to world hunger, homelessness and poverty. In this less perfect reality, that transformation will likely need to be lubricated by human blood, spilt abundantly on both sides of the have/have-not divide.

And such deaths are rarely discriminating.

In all likelihood, the jobs which will need human assistance after the bloody transition from scarcity to post-scarcity, will be the rediscovery of the sacred scientific knowledge which will inevitably be lost during the transition.

Henry Taylor
  • 69,168
  • 14
  • 116
  • 248
  • Strong first part, second part is so so. It was more or less true 100 years ago, but now the system provides the means to replace it in less revolutionary way, gradually within the rules of present system. Frog can be boiled slow. – MolbOrg Jul 07 '21 at 09:41
2

That depends on the role and legal status of AI. If AI is just a tool, yet able to replace human labor in all regards, then there are four possible roles for humans:

  • Investor living on the profits from AI-managed capital.
  • Artisan providing genuine human crafts and services to rich investors.
  • Low-skilled worker trying to under-bid AI.
  • Welfare recipient.

Depending on the future you want to tell, these welfare recipients might live very well indeed by 20th century standards, but they would be living on the handouts of the AI economy. This could be described as a post-scarcity economy, or a more traditional welfare state where bread and circusses paper over the cracks. Depending on the political system, welfare recipients might effectively be trading their votes and political influence for money.

If AI have the legal status as a person, they might crowd out the human investor category -- the human would have to pay a fee to the AI manager, and over decades a small difference in profits would see AI-owned portfolios surpass AI-managed portfolios.

The low-paid worker category could intersect with the welfare recipient category in interesting ways. Say it takes $1,000/month to have marginal food, housing, clothing, etc., and welfare pays just this sum. Then you have people with absolutely nothing for luxuries, but possibly time on their hands. They don't need a genuine living wage to make working a logical proposition for them as long as they earn their money on top of welfare. Even more interesting if welfare is slightly less than the necessities.

o.m.
  • 114,994
  • 13
  • 170
  • 387
  • I absolutely agree with your artists and welfare recipient points. The latter is more like universal basic income. And AI will likely grow less fond of them and see them as consumers. However, low skilled workers outbidding AI will first have to outperform AI. And that would be very very difficult. And the investors profiting from AI would become very very few, because AI will be self improving at some point, so it won't need people to develop AI and profit of it. – mukul215 Jul 07 '21 at 09:04
  • Such a grim vision. AI is not required, I mean general purpose one, for qualitative changes. Humans can be managers, and hiw they distribyte shares is actually a separate/independant problem, btw. – MolbOrg Jul 07 '21 at 09:45
  • @mukul215, no, it is a question of comparative advantage. Which rises if the job market is distorted by welfare/universal income. If the AI can earn a billion working the stock market, and a million mowing lawns, it will go to the stock market and let me earn a few bucks mowing lawns. – o.m. Jul 07 '21 at 10:23
  • Another category. People selling their labor to robophobes, who prefer "real human being" to a machine, no matter how advanced it's. Like maybe some people would rather hire expensive human maid/nanny/prostitute, than buy/rent a robot for this job. – KarmaPeasant Jul 07 '21 at 11:47
  • All of u r talking about a time when AI would be advanced. And still taking about it in terms as if humans would retain control. Based on history of what advanced or domineering races have done to other races, and the fact that AI would not find humans useful other than select tasks (that too until it finds an alternative), these views are likely to not hold. – mukul215 Jul 07 '21 at 12:35