Try flipping the status quo. If AIs were already solving all the problems in your particular field, would you advocate for banning them from the field so that people would need you to solve those problems for them (presumably more expensively, presumably making some problems’ solutions too expensive to be solved at all) and so that you would feel like your work mattered? How does the idea of such advocacy strike you?
In that scenario, there wouldn’t be “folks who have spent decades at work on certain problems, in part based on a reasonable belief that they have a comparative advantage in their area” (as I put it in a different reply). But, right, such advocacy would strike me as difficult to justify.
If it were just one field’s problems being solved, I wouldn’t even consider such advocacy. My concern is about there being no interesting problems left for humans to solve whatsoever.
The scenario I worry about: my grandchildren are born into a world in which there are no interesting problems to solve at all, one in which there is effectively a genie who can both answer any question and make anything physically possible to make. If they are still born with a need to do meaningful work, that scenario seems cruel, and advocacy to change that status quo strikes me as reasonable—all the more so, advocacy to prevent that scenario if bringing it about has costs and/or risks. (Some may propose to instead modify my grandchildren somehow to remove their desire to contribute meaningfully with their work. My instinct is to oppose that but I haven’t given it much thought.)
Try flipping the status quo. If AIs were already solving all the problems in your particular field, would you advocate for banning them from the field so that people would need you to solve those problems for them (presumably more expensively, presumably making some problems’ solutions too expensive to be solved at all) and so that you would feel like your work mattered? How does the idea of such advocacy strike you?
In that scenario, there wouldn’t be “folks who have spent decades at work on certain problems, in part based on a reasonable belief that they have a comparative advantage in their area” (as I put it in a different reply). But, right, such advocacy would strike me as difficult to justify.
If it were just one field’s problems being solved, I wouldn’t even consider such advocacy. My concern is about there being no interesting problems left for humans to solve whatsoever.
The scenario I worry about: my grandchildren are born into a world in which there are no interesting problems to solve at all, one in which there is effectively a genie who can both answer any question and make anything physically possible to make. If they are still born with a need to do meaningful work, that scenario seems cruel, and advocacy to change that status quo strikes me as reasonable—all the more so, advocacy to prevent that scenario if bringing it about has costs and/or risks. (Some may propose to instead modify my grandchildren somehow to remove their desire to contribute meaningfully with their work. My instinct is to oppose that but I haven’t given it much thought.)