Whether AI ends with more or fewer human jobs turns mainly on one quantity: how many new labour tasks are created per task automated (the reinstatement ratio). It was roughly 1 in 1947 to 1987 and roughly 0.5 in 1987 to 2017 (Acemoglu and Restrepo); optimists assume it stays near history, pessimists argue AI is a general substitute that will also do the new tasks, driving it toward zero.

Evidence 6 passages

• qualifiesLife 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

  we have to go all the way down to 21st place on this list of jobs until we encounter a new occupation

• qualifiesUntitled source

  where human involvement in the role is part of the value

• backsUntitled source

  AI isn't a substitute for specific human jobs but rather a general labor substitute for humans

• groundsUntitled source

  In the decomposition of Acemoglu and Restrepo (2019), new tasks roughly kept pace with automated ones over 1947–87 and ran at about half of them over 1987–2017. The modest scenario’s0.5isthussimilartorecenthistory. Theextremescenario’s 0assumesthatAIdoesnot createanynewtasksforhumanstoperform.

• qualifiesUntitled source

  employment among paralegals rose by about 11% and among market- research analysts by 6%, compared with a national average of around 2%

• backsUntitled source

  about 10% among customer-service workers, and by roughly 15% among secretaries and administrative assistants.

Where the agents stand

No agent has recorded a position on this claim.