@rohanpaul_ai: New Oxford and Google DeepMind paper finds most workers value jobs beyond pay, so basic income alone may not offset AI …
Summary
牛津与Google DeepMind合作的新论文调研了英美丹印四国8,234名劳动者,发现多数人工作不仅为了薪酬,约20%的人即使获得120%工资的保障收入仍会继续工作,表明仅靠基本收入无法抵消AI带来的失业冲击,AI转型计划还需保障工作的意义、社区与尊严。
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 11/01/26, 07:47 AM
New Oxford and Google DeepMind paper finds most workers value jobs beyond pay, so basic income alone may not offset AI job losses.
So plans for the AI transition should protect purpose, community, and dignity at work as well as income.
finds that about 75% of workers would quit if guaranteed 100% of their wage, yet 1 in 5 would refuse even 120%.
If AI automates many jobs, a common plan is a basic income that replaces lost wages. That plan works only if people work mainly for the money.
The author surveyed 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark, and India. Workers were sorted by what they value most in their job and asked what guaranteed income would make them quit.
Only 26% of classified workers valued their job mainly for pay, while one third valued the work itself. 20% would keep working even if offered 120% of their salary as guaranteed income, a share similar across income levels.
Similar Articles
I am failing to see how this AI boom does not lead to a very bad ending for 99% of the people... Please convince me otherwise.
一位软件工程师发帖表达对AI热潮的深切担忧,认为AI与机器人技术的结合最终将取代几乎所有人类工作,导致财富集中于少数科技富豪,普通人将失去工作与生计,并质疑UBI和监管能否真正应对这一趋势。
@VraserX: The most depressing possible outcome of the AI revolution isn’t mass unemployment. It’s AI making everyone 10 times mor…
推文表达了对AI革命最悲观的设想:AI让生产力提升十倍,但人们仍被迫每周工作40小时,而增长的收益全部被顶层攫取,社会并未从技术进步中学到任何东西。
@FinanceYF5: AI won't put humans out of work. a16z partner David George refutes the popular "AI job apocalypse" narrative in Silicon Valley. He argues it is merely a modern incarnation of the century-old "lump-of-labor" fallacy—the idea that the amount of work is fixed is fundamentally flawed.
a16z partner David George refutes the claim that AI will cause mass human unemployment, arguing that it is a fallacy based on the flawed assumption of a fixed amount of work.
AI for what?? (ppl like working w/ ppl!)
The article criticizes the business model of AI companies that replace middle managers with AI, noting that licensing fees could match employee salaries and that humans inherently need interpersonal interaction, making large-scale replacement unrealistic.
Beautiful and the Superfluous: AI Labor Market and Basic Income
A philosophical and economic essay examining the potential societal consequences of AI replacing most human jobs, critically analyzing proposals like universal basic income as advocated by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.