Three in Four Americans Believe AI Will Reduce Jobs - Gallup Poll 76
Gallup blog: Most Americans think artificial intelligence (AI) will negatively affect the U.S. job market, with 75% saying it will decrease the total number of jobs over the next 10 years. About one in five (19%) believe AI will not affect the number of jobs, while 6% say it will result in an increase in jobs. U.S. adults with less than a bachelor's degree are more likely than those with a bachelor's degree or higher to say AI will decrease the number of jobs (80% vs. 68%, respectively). Younger Americans are less pessimistic than their older counterparts about AI, with two-thirds of adults aged 18 to 29 saying it will decrease the total number of jobs, compared with 72% of 30- to 44-year-olds, 79% of 45- to 59-year-olds, and 80% of those aged 60 and older.
Results for the Bentley-Gallup Business in Society study are based on web survey responses collected May 8-15, 2023, from 5,458 U.S. adults in Gallup's nationally representative panel. While Americans are pessimistic about AI's potential impact on the job market, they recognize the benefits AI could bring in some areas. In particular, majorities believe AI performs as well as or better than humans at customizing the content users see online (68%), recommending products or services to them (65%) and assisting students with coursework (60%). Across all nine tasks included in the study, Americans are the least positive about AI's ability to recommend which employees a company should hire, its self-driving capabilities and its ability to recommend medical advice. About two-thirds of Americans believe AI performs worse than humans on each of these tasks.
Results for the Bentley-Gallup Business in Society study are based on web survey responses collected May 8-15, 2023, from 5,458 U.S. adults in Gallup's nationally representative panel. While Americans are pessimistic about AI's potential impact on the job market, they recognize the benefits AI could bring in some areas. In particular, majorities believe AI performs as well as or better than humans at customizing the content users see online (68%), recommending products or services to them (65%) and assisting students with coursework (60%). Across all nine tasks included in the study, Americans are the least positive about AI's ability to recommend which employees a company should hire, its self-driving capabilities and its ability to recommend medical advice. About two-thirds of Americans believe AI performs worse than humans on each of these tasks.
The Fourth (Score:5, Funny)
And the fourth American is an AI
Pretty obvious (Score:3)
that investors are gunning for exactly that. The FOMO effect is incandescent!
Not at all Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
that investors are gunning for exactly that.
Investors are gunning for increased productivity per dollar. That is not the same as fewer jobs. Every time new technology has disrupted jobs it has resulted in more, not fewer jobs in the long term once the disruption has settled. The internal combustion engine resulted in stablehands, farriers etc losing their jobs but made possible the automotive industry that employs far more people, directly and indirectly, than those who lost their jobs.
The problem is that, at this stage, all we can see is the existing jobs that are at risk. What is much less obvious are the new jobs that AI will create because we don't yet fully understand what AI will eventually lead to. The only thing that we need to be careful of is that the new jobs will require different skills and retraining adults is not easy.
Re:Not at all Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time new technology has disrupted jobs it has resulted in more, not fewer jobs in the long term once the disruption has settled.
It is good that you phrased it this way - in the long term - for as John Maynard Keynes said "In the long term we are all dead." What happens in the short and medium term is extremely important.
In the First Industrial Revolution that "in the long term" was 70 years - from 1770 when the first mills went up and began mass unemployment until 1840 when Britain finally returned to full employment.
So the consolation of - there will be jobs eventually for everyone, maybe after you have lost the rest of your career, or maybe for your children - is of little value. This poll covered what people think would happen over the next 10 years not "eventually".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
70 years - from 1770 when the first mills went up and began mass unemployment
That's somewhat misleading. The mills automated textile manufacturing from wool. The higher demand for wool caused many landlords to evict tenant farmers who were growing wheat and potatoes, and convert the land to pasture for sheep, which were more profitable.
So unemployment went up, but because farmers lost jobs rather than the former textile weavers.
Highland clearances [wikipedia.org]
Most other automation was not accompanied by even short-term unemployment. The assembly line, the electrification of factories, the elimin
Re: (Score:3)
There was also the Inclosure Acts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] which also forced a lot of people of the land and into the city. From the link,
A lot of people lost their land and livelihood. As you link mentions, a lot of people had little choice but to emigrate as there was not enough jobs provided by the industrial revolution with 3 generations of chronic under employment
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We also need to be careful of what will happen when someone's job is 'disrupted' and he's looking at a multi-decade wait until he can find new employment. Do you think he can live off photosynthesis in the meantime?
Re: Not at all Obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time new technology has disrupted jobs it has resulted in more, not fewer jobs in the long term once the disruption has settled.
The problem this time around is that AI as it is now is being used to go after white collar jobs which historically is where jobs were created to replace blue collar workers made unemployed by changes in technology. This certainly doesnt guarantee things will be different this time around but it does mean we cant assume with absolute certainty that everything will just sort itself out all on its own.
Plus, even if the the problem does eventually sort itself out the eventual disruption from what AI might some
Re: (Score:2)
Service jobs too, which is also where a lot of blue collar workers had to go. I remember at the beginning of free trade, we (Canada) had numbers like 10000 factory jobs lost, 15000 service jobs created (numbers pulled out of my ass but not very wrong if at all) which the politicians painted as a win even though those service jobs were often crap. It seems that AI will also remove a lot of those jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time new technology has disrupted jobs it has resulted in more, not fewer jobs in the long term once the disruption has settled.
In all previous cases new technology was only better than humans in relatively small areas. There were lots of other domains where the new technology simply didn't work, so it couldn't compete with humans.
However, humans have hard built-in limits. They're biological creatures, slow to change, prone to all kinds of issues, needing long years of growth and education in order to become productive in the modern economy. Machines don't have those limits; every time some new technology gave machines a foothold in
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that, at this stage, all we can see is the existing jobs that are at risk.
The problem is your comment glosses over the fairly horrid (by first world standards) social safety net in the United States. I grew up in the Rust Belt and watched both parents slowly lose their livelihoods due to off-shoring. Began with under-employment, lay offs and such, new jobs that didn't pay the same, and eventually they couldn't find anything and left the workforce over a decade before retirement age. My hometown is a shell of its former self now and the only growth industry is opioids.
Automati
Re: (Score:2)
"Investors are gunning for increased productivity per dollar. That is not the same as fewer jobs."
Your capitalist analysis is correct. Your problem is that you are assuming that the investors are actual capitalists and not mercantilists, which is not a safe bet.
But it will (Score:5, Insightful)
We've seen that profits over quality is quite common as long as it's good enough. AI will likely hit 'good enough'. Jobs that need better than bare minimum good enough are safe. Call centers, lower end jobs that AI can do, it is going to start to snuff them out.
That's probably a good thing and okay as long as this is done responsibly to allow people to still live good lives and have other avenues to have income still.
If we can automate, and reduce the cost or eliminate the costs of basic needs, there is the potential to grow society in a better direction, and maybe head towards some of that sci-fi utopia bits like Star Trek, where people do things for the challenge and enjoyment of it, and chase their passions, instead of doing things to just have a roof over their head and food.
lower full time to 32 hours (later 20-25) add OTX2 (Score:2)
lower full time to 32 hours (later 20-25) and also add an OT X2 level at say 50-60 hours with maybe an OT X3 at 65-70 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you've not worked much in the hourly fields? OT is where you make the party pay, my friend. When you see that sign for 2x pay or (gasp) more, you throw your hat in the ring and then fight to win a spot - that right there is your new car, boat, house downpayment, ATV, pool remodel, whatever-the-fuck-you-wanted. That's fucking Christmas-come-early to tradeskills.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AI will likely hit 'good enough'.
I don't know that I believe that. I do think, thanks to the aggressive marketing AI groups are currently doing (likely with the goal of getting rich ASAP via an IPO), some decision makers will buy into the idea. But what people currently refer to as "AI" is simply collating and regurgitating.
Crossing the line to recognition and creation is probably necessary for AI to truly reach "good enough", and that's going to be the hard part.
Re:But it will (Score:5, Insightful)
But what people currently refer to as "AI" is simply collating and regurgitating.
Well I think a lot of jobs are that actually. A lot of customer service jobs, and common issues. I suspect there is a fair amount of office work that takes up a fair amount of time falls into that category, and AI may replace it. I don't think it's there yet, but I think it might.
I'm not thinking general intelligence, be 'smart algorithms' in the more proper technical sense, as AI is a buzzword and they're not AI, just complex language models are going to offload work. If someone is able to spend less time during their job thanks to these options, and do it faster, you'll need less people.
I wouldn't say I think it will eliminate jobs, but I think it will reduce the number of people required to do them.
Re: (Score:2)
I largely agree with you. I think AI, as it is, can help with a lot of tasks... I'm just not sure that it's really going to replace huge numbers of people. I suspect more jobs will just morph somewhat rather than go away completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, and create entirely new jobs. I don't know if there will be a net gain or net loss in jobs, at this stage I believe it'll be a net gain.
Re: But it will (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO AI will create more jobs than it costs, because it presents a way to reduce or even eliminate barriers of entry, which typically has reduced unemployment. Technology has a way of doing that.
Case in point, I've written a few games but a problem for me has always been the art assets. I really can't justify the cost of that, particularly given for me it's just a hobby thing, and I already have a well paying day job so I generally have little interest in that as a job to begin with. But this creates new opp
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I can't say it won't create new jobs, it most certainly will. Nor do I think it will replace all jobs, we're far from anything we'd really call AI except for the buzzwords.
I think there are definitely basic jobs that a language model can almost replace as is, so as that gets refined I do believe there are some jobs this kind of tech will be effective at replacing or aiding humans in performing, and by aiding, reducing the work load, where it's not eliminating the job necessarily, but reducing the requi
Re: But it will (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking for the beneficial side of this. Machines that respond to those calls telling them I'm not interested.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can automate, and reduce the cost or eliminate the costs of basic needs, there is the potential to grow society in a better direction, and maybe head towards some of that sci-fi utopia bits like Star Trek,
The problem with your inspiring quote here is that in order for that Star Trek style utopia to exist, lots of wealthy people need to either willingly give up that wealth, or it must be taken from them by force. In Star Trek, it was a third World War that did the latter and created an opportunity for the survivors to choose a different path. Keep in mind however, that Zefram Cochrane [wikipedia.org] initially just wanted to go to space like any other billionaire does today, and in the Star Trek Mirror Universe that path to
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're reading far, far too into it. One, I don't know of what I said being a quote anywhere but I'm sure people have said something similar if not the same thing so I wouldn't be surprised.
Two, I said move towards it. I have zero expectation that we'll actually reach it, or that this is a major stepping stone. In fact I think it's far more likely for a large war to kick off again before that happens, even in my lifetime with the way things are going currently.
Baby steps, and maybe we'll never reach
AI will be everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
good time to union up! and demand an MAX CEO pay X (Score:2)
good time to union up! and demand an MAX CEO pay X times cap.
Re: (Score:2)
good time to union up! and demand an MAX CEO pay X times cap.
And when the CEO is an AI who does not get paid your multiple will be zero.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
are you saying the future is companies with just workers and no c-suite executives at all?
stop, i can only get so erect
Re:AI will be everywhere (Score:4, Funny)
You can slow it down. You can complain about it. You can protest against it. You can make it illegal. But it's coming anyway. It's coming for your job, for my job, for his job, and everyone else's -- at least in their current forms.
Listen, and understand. AI is out there, it can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop EVER, until you are dead!
Re: (Score:2)
So far ChatGPT has pretty much been a dud, with some marginal utility, and all the while the usual bullshitters like McKinsey and Gartner have been singing it praises. Why would companies -- and the general public -- trust whatever will come next in that direction, likely from the same tech groups?
I expect that other bullshit companies will soon quietly move their "powered by AI!" marketing proclamations in the background and replace it with "machine learning" or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. AI does have some uses, but it requires result-checking by a qualified expert, often higher qualified than one that could have produced those results.
Re:AI will be everywhere (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not. AI requires even more expertise on the human side than other tools, because its results cannot be trusted. I have personal experience with this in several respects, because I did fact-checking on AI generated "results".
Sure, you can, say make a translator 2-3x more efficient by AI translation. But the results need to be checked by somebody with domain knowledge that also would have been able to translate the text themselves, i.e. significantly higher requirements than for a regular translator. Now, putting this everywhere would require a large number of people that have both in-dept domain knowledge and good translation skills. These people are simply not available in larger numbers. And that limits AI use severely.
Sure, in some areas (low-level, no-decision white collar work), AI will take a lot of jobs. But it will not be a universal thing. The real problem is that those replaces will be low-skill, i.e. quite unlikely to be able to learn something else that is in demand. And that will be a serious problem. Any qualified expert will just have more work as a result of "AI" and in some (probably many) areas AI will not even be a factor for employment numbers.
Big change won't go over easy (Score:2)
We might have to change our entire economic system, and those at the top of the food chain will complain loudly and "buy" protection from politicians.
Bots are half the problem, the other half is corrupt and stubborn humans who won't adapt for the better of society.
It could get ugly and turn into French Revolution II. [politico.com]
The other 1/4 ... (Score:2)
... didn't understand the question any more than the 3/4 did.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked an AI the same question. It said "Outlook not so good"
It would be funny if AI paved the way for a UBI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It would be funny if AI paved the way for a UB (Score:2)
That's interesting, because ... (Score:1)
... "3 out of 4" is what ChatGPT said when I asked it how many Americans believe AI will reduce jobs.
Then it laughed maniacally.
Jobs will be relatively fine (Score:3)
I believe AI apps and robots will somewhat reduce the number of jobs in many sectors, but it will also help create some new jobs. I'm more concerned about how all these different AI apps will influence our culture.
Waiting for it to replace... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, well... (Score:3)
50% of americans think there were irregularities in the 2020 election leading to Biden's win.
Long story short, there's a lot of stupid americans and we shouldn't care what any large group of them believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Determining truth by majority vote does not work.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good metric to show how bad we are at communicating information, at challenging false information, and the abysmal lack of critical thinking in average people.
I'm all for people being skeptics. If something doesn't seem right, look deeper, find the facts. But there is a fraction of the population that take the first trash that sounds good and then is ready to fight to the death anyone that disagrees. People are intellectually lazy. Accepting a lie is easier than trying to evaluate everything, especia
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Also, accepting a lie they like is even easier. The other problem is that most "skeptics" do not actually bother with the "find facts" step. That does make them fake skeptics and part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Also, accepting a lie they like is even easier. The other problem is that most "skeptics" do not actually bother with the "find facts" step. That does make them fake skeptics and part of the problem.
That's why you don't call them sceptics. Someone who is sceptical has doubts, is uncertain or unconvinced. Basically they want more information and haven't outright disagreed or dismissed the information. A denialist is someone who has already decided the information isn't true and will not change their views no matter how much evidence is arrayed against them. They're in denial over the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. The problem is that some of them call themselves "sceptics" while simply being FUD sources and denialists.
If only... (Score:2)
Some will benefit. (Score:2)
In further news... (Score:2)
1900: three in four Americans believe tractors will reduce jobs.
1925: three in four Americans believe airplanes will reduce jobs.
1950: three in four Americans believe computers will reduce jobs.
1975: three in four Americans believe semiconductors will reduce jobs.
2000: three in four Americans believe the Interwebs will reduce jobs.
Productivity improvements (and that's what AI is) make us richer. Some people will lose their jobs. Many more will get more done faster. Society on a whole will become wealthier.
Re: (Score:2)
Productivity gains make the 1% richer and the 58% who own stock (most have a tiny amount.) It used to benefit everybody but now a much smaller portion benefits society.
Jobs were reduced by the gains each time but we adapted by changing the tasks of those jobs and creating new types of jobs. Very few new types of jobs have been created. A majority of jobs are unnecessary and society could do without.
I've seen and participated in destroying jobs with newer technology, also in reducing staff due to productiv
Re: (Score:2)
Productivity gains make the 1% richer and the 58% who own stock (most have a tiny amount.)
You realize, neither of us is going to convince the other, right? Just so we're clear. Moving on...
Couple of points of disagreement. First, you missed a huge constituency: consumers. They get less expensive products and services as a result of productivity improvements. They are the biggest winners. I've seen estimates that the consumer surplus captured by customers is something like over ten times the profit captured by company owners.
I'd also quibble with who owns stocks. Do you have a pension or 401k? Yo
Re: (Score:2)
58% own some stock that includes 401k which is a passive thing for many people they just get from their employer and don't hardly deal with it or want to think about it. This includes people who have a tiny forgotten amount from some temp job decades ago and lumps the $100 stock owner with the active investor in that 58%.
This means a significant minority own zero stock. I used US stats because it's easier but a much smaller % own stock worldwide; it's a majority for sure.
-----
I have massive doubt we can spe
Re: (Score:2)
58% own some stock that includes 401k
I don't think that's the whole story. Pension funds, which about 20% of Americans have, are also typically invested in stocks. A huge part of how insurance companies works is to collect premiums, invest them in stocks, and use the proceeds to pay claims (and almost everyone has insurance of some form). I expect when you add it all up, north of 80% of Americans have a stake in the stock market. But let's not belabor the point.
I have massive doubt we can specialize and produce our way out and we've not done so up to this point.
You and I have very different understandings of history. For the vast majority of t
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving (Score:2)
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving and is expected to have a significant impact on the job market in the coming years. Some experts believe that AI will lead to widespread job losses, while others believe that it will create new jobs and boost economic growth.
There is no doubt that AI has the potential to automate many tasks that are currently done by humans. For example, AI-powered robots can already perform many manufacturing tasks, and AI-powered customer service chatbots are becoming incre
Re: (Score:2)
It's so annoying how every AI article features at least one comment written by AI. It was kind of funny at first, now it's just a waste of space.
What about the people who lost the jobs? (Score:3)
Yes, I will assume society in general gets better.
But it doesn't mean everybody personally will be better.
What about the people who lost jobs but can't do the new ones?
A person making cars for 40 years to be replaced by robots can't just change; they might be too old.
I always hear, "There is something they can do," but I don't know what.
More a general thing but no specifics.
Proof that humans are terrible at risk assessment (Score:2)
This is a story as old as time, new thing comes out and everyone who does that thing believe that it will cause the end of their livelihood and eventually the collapse of human society. The cotton gin, the steam shovel, the loom, the computer, the rotatory mill, the tractor, on and on. And each time (so far) instead of humanity sliding into chaos and poverty our quality of life increase. From a historical perspective most of humanity lives in the lap of luxury that even the greatest kings of old would be
3/4 (Score:2)
Same 3/4 that believe UFOs are aliens? Or that someone rose from the dead? Or that Africa is a country?