Editing Artificial intelligence (section)

==== Technological unemployment ====
{{Main|Workplace impact of artificial intelligence|Technological unemployment}}

Economists have frequently highlighted the risks of redundancies from AI, and speculated about unemployment if there is no adequate social policy for full employment.<ref name="E">E. McGaughey, 'Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income, and Economic Democracy' (2022), [https://academic.oup.com/ilj/article/51/3/511/6321008 51(3) Industrial Law Journal 511–559]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230527163045/https://academic.oup.com/ilj/article/51/3/511/6321008|date=27 May 2023}}.</ref>

<!-- TOPIC: ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNT OF UNEMPLOYMENT -->
In the past, technology has tended to increase rather than reduce total employment, but economists acknowledge that "we're in uncharted territory" with AI.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Ford|Colvin|2015}};{{Harvtxt|McGaughey|2022}}</ref> A survey of economists showed disagreement about whether the increasing use of robots and AI will cause a substantial increase in long-term [[unemployment]], but they generally agree that it could be a net benefit if [[productivity]] gains are [[Redistribution of income and wealth|redistributed]].{{Sfnp|IGM Chicago|2017}} Risk estimates vary; for example, in the 2010s, Michael Osborne and [[Carl Benedikt Frey]] estimated 47% of U.S. jobs are at "high risk" of potential automation, while an OECD report classified only 9% of U.S. jobs as "high risk".{{Efn|See table 4; 9% is both the OECD average and the U.S. average.{{Sfnp|Arntz|Gregory|Zierahn|2016|p=33}}}}<ref>{{Harvtxt|Lohr|2017}}; {{Harvtxt|Frey|Osborne|2017}}; {{Harvtxt|Arntz|Gregory|Zierahn|2016|p=33}}</ref> The methodology of speculating about future employment levels has been criticised as lacking evidential foundation, and for implying that technology, rather than social policy, creates unemployment, as opposed to redundancies.<ref name="E"/> In April 2023, it was reported that 70% of the jobs for Chinese video game illustrators had been eliminated by generative artificial intelligence.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Zhou |first=Viola |date=2023-04-11 |title=AI is already taking video game illustrators' jobs in China |url=https://restofworld.org/2023/ai-image-china-video-game-layoffs |access-date=2023-08-17 |website=Rest of World |archive-date=21 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240221131748/https://restofworld.org/2023/ai-image-china-video-game-layoffs/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Carter |first=Justin |date=2023-04-11 |title=China's game art industry reportedly decimated by growing AI use |url=https://www.gamedeveloper.com/art/china-s-game-art-industry-reportedly-decimated-ai-art-use |access-date=2023-08-17 |website=Game Developer |archive-date=17 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817010519/https://www.gamedeveloper.com/art/china-s-game-art-industry-reportedly-decimated-ai-art-use |url-status=live }}</ref>

<!-- TOPIC: WHICH JOBS ARE AT RISK? -->
Unlike previous waves of automation, many middle-class jobs may be eliminated by artificial intelligence; ''[[The Economist]]'' stated in 2015 that "the worry that AI could do to white-collar jobs what steam power did to blue-collar ones during the Industrial Revolution" is "worth taking seriously".{{Sfnp|Morgenstern|2015}} Jobs at extreme risk range from [[paralegal]]s to fast food cooks, while job demand is likely to increase for care-related professions ranging from personal healthcare to the clergy.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Mahdawi|2017}}; {{Harvtxt|Thompson|2014}}</ref>

From the early days of the development of artificial intelligence, there have been arguments, for example, those put forward by [[Joseph Weizenbaum]], about whether tasks that can be done by computers actually should be done by them, given the difference between computers and humans, and between quantitative calculation and qualitative, value-based judgement.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Tarnoff |first=Ben |date=4 August 2023 |title=Lessons from Eliza |work=[[The Guardian Weekly]] |pages=34–39}}</ref>