学术英语听说
省级
价格 免费
2024.09.09 ~ 2025.01.05
  • 杭州师范大学
  • 建议每周学习3小时
  • 1405人已参与
课程已结束,不允许加入和购买

第10次开课

开始:2024-09-09

截止:2025-01-05

课程已进行至

17/17周

成绩预发布时间 2024-12-19

教学团队

杭州师范大学
副教授
杭州师范大学
副教授
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
教授
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师
杭州师范大学
讲师

课程特色

视频(59)
考试(53)
讨论(24)
图文(11)
下载资料(8)

About"Will AI replace human jobs?"

By 王梓隽 11-29 128次浏览

Regarding this question, I have pondered over it for a long time, even before ChatGPT was born. Will AI take away human jobs? I look at a different aspect of this question, which is different from the common view that "AI replaces easier jobs while creating new ones."

My opinion is that AI didn't and won't make humans lose their jobs, but humans did and will. I know this idea is different from the more common ones. For this reason, I want to share it with you all.

It's easy to imagine that more and more powerful robots, AI, and machines will take away jobs such as delivering packages and assembly line work. In fact, as early as the *trial Revolution, there were such concerns. But when we see it through our eyes, we find it unreasonable. Machines didn't take away human jobs; instead, they created more. If we believe that the development of technology will harm human life and block it out of fear, we will make the same mistake as the Luddites. They didn't know how they took away their better life.

So, I have a guess. It's not AI or machines that take away human jobs but some humans. Now imagine a situation. One worker can produce 100 units of value, and as a boss, you need to pay him 20 for his labor. So, you can get 80 units of value. One automatic machine can produce 150 units of value, and you just need to take care of it with 50 units. I think you will make your choice. This is just an example to show you why machines replace humans. But why don't you match a machine and a worker? After that, you have done the same as the bosses after the *trial Revolution. Time flies! Yet, this method is old now.

If I remember correctly what my history teacher said, during the Second *trial Revolution, factory owners knew that the most profitable part of the process had shifted from sales to production. Based on this view, it was natural for factory owners to have fewer workers and more machines. However, we can't ignore a truth. Most of the productions are bought by workers, and the price is paid by wages. AI and machines don't need these productions. Therefore, workers' wages are lower (workers lose their jobs), and productions are more and more (AI and machines have higher productivity). And then a very scary thing will happen.

In my opinion, this problem can be avoided by the change of bosses. It is completely possible for bosses to increase the use of machines without reducing the number of workers. Let workers work less but increase their wages because machines do a lot of work and don't need wages. And all this requires bosses to make a sacrifice by reducing some of their profits.

I know this is a very idealistic mode of production. But as Marx said, the development of productive forces requires the continuous change of the mode of production to make society develop better. This is especially true in the era of rapid AI development. People talk about AI taking their jobs and snatching their money, but the real problem is NOT the development of AI and machines.

Just like this article, I first created the full text myself, and then gave it to the AI to help me correct grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as some vocabulary problems, and finally came to this article. AI is just a tool, and it's up to people to use it. Like the topic of this article, it ultimately depends on how the person does it.

0 回复

  • 还没有回复,赶快添加一个吧!

添加回复