They might reasonably conclude that such tech was going to lead to ongoing forever unemployment. However none of that happened.
1850 is a tad late for your example, but ok.
And yes, they worried and yes they were sort of right to — in the short term. Every major tech shift displaced a lot of workers, workers who couldn't find their way again. Over time it was fine, since labor adjusts and new, young people learn and explore different things and the overall economy grows.
Question is always: is it different this time?
I'm partial to the idea that a) AI is sufficiently different b) we've reached such a high level that further improvements are limited (low-hanging fruit; yet another app) c) tech is sooo different and incomprehensible that current labor force just won't be able to retrain, at least fast enough to undo unemployment d) combined with demographic decline, there just won't be enough people to take up the slack.
I dunno, probs just venting at this point but still.
1850 is a tad late for your example, but ok.
And yes, they worried and yes they were sort of right to — in the short term.
Every major tech shift displaced a lot of workers, workers who couldn't find their way again. Over time it was fine, since labor adjusts and new, young people learn and explore different things and the overall economy grows.
Question is always: is it different this time?
I'm partial to the idea that
a) AI is sufficiently different
b) we've reached such a high level that further improvements are limited (low-hanging fruit; yet another app)
c) tech is sooo different and incomprehensible that current labor force just won't be able to retrain, at least fast enough to undo unemployment
d) combined with demographic decline, there just won't be enough people to take up the slack.
I dunno, probs just venting at this point but still.