> The previous one, the industrial revolution, created lots of jobs because the new technology required huge numbers of humans to run it.
This doesn't really make sense. The industrial revolution more or less replaced lots of relatively unproductive jobs with a smaller amount of much more productive jobs. There might have been more work, but individual people were doing more work as well.
> Technology provides leverage on ability and luck, and in the process concentrates wealth and drives inequality. I think that drastic wealth inequality is likely to be one of the biggest social problems of the next 20 years.
Wealth inequality is already a huge problem, and has been for a long time. I don't see how it's going to be worse in the next 20 years, given in a lot of countries (China, India, etc.) we're seeing wealth flow to, or be created by, a growing middle class. A lot of the 'Occupy' movement was somewhat misguided - the percentage of people in the United States or Australia or the UK who are in the 1% worldwide is perhaps as high as 20% or 30%.
Software, rather than hindering, may very well help people in rapidly developing nations generate wealth because the economic barrier to entry for software businesses is comparatively low compared to other types of businesses.
I'm also a little concerned that it seems as though many people believe wealth redistribution is the only way to make it more equal. Why can't we create wealth in some places? As far as I understand, wealth is not finite.
Once we get to the point of widespread AI-driven automation, then we'll have a real economic problem. It won't be just because people can't generate wealth - people may very well begin to lose wealth. But this is a 50-year problem, not a 20-year one.
This doesn't really make sense. The industrial revolution more or less replaced lots of relatively unproductive jobs with a smaller amount of much more productive jobs. There might have been more work, but individual people were doing more work as well.
> Technology provides leverage on ability and luck, and in the process concentrates wealth and drives inequality. I think that drastic wealth inequality is likely to be one of the biggest social problems of the next 20 years.
Wealth inequality is already a huge problem, and has been for a long time. I don't see how it's going to be worse in the next 20 years, given in a lot of countries (China, India, etc.) we're seeing wealth flow to, or be created by, a growing middle class. A lot of the 'Occupy' movement was somewhat misguided - the percentage of people in the United States or Australia or the UK who are in the 1% worldwide is perhaps as high as 20% or 30%.
Software, rather than hindering, may very well help people in rapidly developing nations generate wealth because the economic barrier to entry for software businesses is comparatively low compared to other types of businesses.
I'm also a little concerned that it seems as though many people believe wealth redistribution is the only way to make it more equal. Why can't we create wealth in some places? As far as I understand, wealth is not finite.
Once we get to the point of widespread AI-driven automation, then we'll have a real economic problem. It won't be just because people can't generate wealth - people may very well begin to lose wealth. But this is a 50-year problem, not a 20-year one.