Controversy Surrounds OpenAI CEO’s Remarks on Job Displacement Due to AI
Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, has recently come under fire following his remarks regarding the types of jobs likely to be supplanted by artificial intelligence.
Altman articulated that while there is an undeniable probability of job displacement due to AI, his perspective on the nature of the jobs at risk was decidedly less than flattering.
During an interview conducted by Rowan Cheung at OpenAI’s DevDay, Altman was posed a thought-provoking question: “If you told a farmer fifty years ago that this magical thing called the internet is going to create a billion new jobs, he probably wouldn’t believe you.”
In response, Altman embarked on a nuanced exploration of work’s essential character.
What, then, did he say that ignited such a reaction?
Expanding upon the farmer analogy, Altman suggested that a farmer might likely deem the work undertaken by many in contemporary professions as “not real work.”
He elaborated: “If you’re farming, you’re doing something people genuinely need. You’re producing food, sustaining life. This is real work.”
In contrast, he intimated that a farmer might perceive our modern occupations as merely “playing a game to fill your time,” thereby questioning their legitimacy as “real jobs.”
“It’s quite plausible that if we could envision those future jobs,” Altman suggested, “we might contemplate that while our current roles may not be as essential as a farmer’s, they are significantly more meaningful than a mere pastime.”
This discourse prompted a response from a social media user, who referenced David Graeber’s seminal work, Bullsh*t Jobs, which delves into the vexing issue of jobs that fail to yield any tangible benefit to society and engender a sense of disillusionment among workers.
The user articulated that societal structures compel individuals to engage in unfulfilling jobs just to survive, thereby robbing them of opportunities for meaningful fulfillment, whether through family time or contributions that enhance societal welfare.
Referencing Graeber’s insights, the commentator noted: “As a society, we have gone ALL IN on a flawed construct, one in which if you lack a job, your existence is jeopardized.”
Furthermore, they lamented that countless individuals are trapped in “bullsh*t jobs” merely to secure basic survival, jobs that offer no substantial contributions beyond merely occupying time.
They also emphasized the necessity of providing alternative means of survival, potentially advocating for a universal basic income if such jobs were to be eliminated.
Another voice in the discourse questioned Altman’s implication, asking: “Wouldn’t that also render AI as not performing ‘real work’?”
This sentiment was echoed by yet another respondent, who posited: “And is it therefore devoid of value? What of the companies behind it?”
Source link: Unilad.com.
