u/MooseOMatic

Opinion pieces on AI typically address concerns about its impact on employment with the reassurance that, historically, technological innovations have always created more jobs than they destroy. I would submit that the way this is presented it is a basic fallacy. It would be an excellent answer to a claim that technology invariably reduces employment, but that claim is not being made. It is also an excellent argument for viewing claims that AI will destroy jobs skeptically and looking further. But the argument it claims to counter is precisely that AI is fundamentally different from prior technology - to the extent that it matches or exceeds humans in strength, intelligence, dexterity, mobility etc. there may be no new jobs for humans to move to. Things are always the same, until they are different, and when reasons are given why something may be different it is simply a fallacy to repeat, ‘no, it has always been thus.’

“Shut up and keep eating,” mother replied, “your father says you need to be much fatter before he can take you to market.”

So when Lexter Jr. handed me that funny green knife and double-dared me to prove it, how was I s’posed to know things would get real, real bad?

EDITED:
So when Lex Junior gave me that funny green knife and double-dared me to go home and prove it, how was I s’posed to know there’d be so much blood, and even invulnabular daddies can die!

I went to Whole Foods to buy some Half and Half. I had a 50% off coupon and they were having a buy-one-get-one-free sale. I came home with 32 quarts!