"To summarize: in both Marxist and neoclassical worlds, an economy composed of highly automated sector only is incompatible with the maintenance of capitalism. In one case because the produced surplus value and thus profit is zero; in the other case, because insufficient aggregate demand leads to profits of zero. The situation can be “saved” only by an equivalent rise of a labor-intensive sector or by massive redistribution to people who do not work.
Thus, we see less dismal future for labor that some people argue. Activities where labor cannot be substituted by the AI will blossom. Will AI bring an overall deskilling of labor or not? At first sight, it seems that the AI will lead to deskilling of labor simply because many skills (such as computing, software development, writing, even math) will be redundant as they may be taken over by machines. Yet, this process may be, and is likely to be, counterbalanced by the creation of occupations where labor skills will exceed today’s level simply because they would have to be superior to the skill levels produced by the AI in order for people to want to purchase such products and services. Therefore, while one part of the labor force may suffer from deskilling, or to call it frankly, from the dumbing-down, another part of the labor force will get more sophisticated and much more skilled. To stay ahead it will have to compete with machines more than with the other humans. But so long as we believe in human adaptation, we can think that there would be always a segment of such labor that would do things that the machines cannot do, or even where the same output is produced by both, it will more appreciated (and hence more valued) if done by live labor rather than by the AI. An AI-generated equally beautiful ice-skater is unlikely to be as much appreciated as a human ice-skater. At least, by the humans."
https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/artificial-intelligence-and-future
#AI #Economics #PoliticalEconomy #GenerativeAI #Marx #Marxism #NeoclassicalEconomics



