David Duvenaud

And of course, they're right to point out that on the margin, there's always more valuable work to be done.

And you can always employ somebody to do valuable work at some wage, basically.

And comparative advantage will mean that there will always be some sort of profitable trades on both sides that mean that in principle, humans will be employable at some wage.

But the problem is that this breakdown is for two reasons.

One is just transaction costs can mean that it's not worth the hassle for the

machine companies or whatever is running the economy to employ humans.

Like humans are pretty unreliable and kind of a pain to employ for a lot of reasons.

And we don't want to hire, for instance, like 12 year olds, even if they're going to work for a dollar an hour.

In fact, that's illegal.

And that's one of the sort of structural forces that we also expect to be operating is that humans are just going to be this unreliable sort of scary thing to involve in anything important.

And it'll be it'll be seen as like irresponsible to involve them in important decisions once machines are like better alternatives.

Okay, yes.

So exactly.

So I agree with this.

And again, I think this is something that people have a lot of issues with and they object and they say, but we won't let it get to that point.

And like one thing we really hammer home is that competitive pressures are really going to force people into that situation.

So even if everybody in the whole civilization sort of loves humans and would prefer to empower them, anyone doing anything important is really seen as this like irresponsible actor if they're like...

putting a human like surgeon in charge of like some surgery.

It's like, what are you, it's just like, you know.

It's risking someone's life.