The invention of film put untold portrait painters out of work. Such is the way of things.
Not really.
Portrait painters were always a highly expensive niche service. Film created many more jobs by democratizing the process and making the economics fit mass production.
So portrait painters go out of business and are replaced by this giant consumer industry of camera makers, film makers, film developers and printers. Not to mention studio portrait photographers. Because it is cheap enough for the average person to afford, but you can still charge for it. That's the analog logic of mass production.
Ai is different because the marginal cost isn't "cheaper". The marginal cost is basically zero. Imagine Henry Ford building a million cars year but only employing 10 production employees.
If ai pans out, you're destroying the jobs of many skilled professionals in design (or pick your thinking industry) and replacing them with far far fewer jobs in computer science. You're not creating a giant new consumer industry based on something that is newly affordable thanks to mass production. You're replacing 10,000 artists with 1 programmer.
Another example. Driving a vehicle is the #1 job category for men in 35 states. If self driving autonomous cars and trucks work out, you're replacing all those drivers with a much smaller number of tech wizards. You're not creating a huge new industry to employ people. You're making an existing on more efficient through digital processes that have a marginal cost of near zero.
Universal basic income anyone?
www.watchuseek.com
