Learning From Ricardo and Thompson: Machinery and Labor in the Early Industrial Revolution and in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
中文摘要
大卫·李嘉图最初认为机器会帮助工人，但后来修正了这一看法，这很可能是基于纺织业自动化所产生的影响。尽管棉纺织业成为英国经济中规模最大的部门之一，但棉织工的实际工资数十年间并未上涨。正如E.P.汤普森所强调的，自动化迫使工人进入不健康的工厂，在严密监视下工作，几乎没有自主权。自动化可以提高工资，但前提是伴随着能提高劳动边际生产率的新任务，和/或互补部门有足够多的新增雇佣。当工人无法争取到其应得的生产率增长份额时，工资不太可能上涨。如今，人工智能可能会提高平均生产率，但也可能取代许多工人，同时降低留任者的工作质量。与李嘉图所处的时代一样，自动化对当今工人的影响远比从生产率提高到工资改善的自动关联更为复杂。
Abstract
David Ricardo initially believed machinery would help workers but revised his opinion, likely based on the impact of automation in the textile industry. Despite cotton textiles becoming one of the largest sectors in the British economy, real wages for cotton weavers did not rise for decades. As E.P. Thompson emphasized, automation forced workers into unhealthy factories with close surveillance and little autonomy. Automation can increase wages, but only when accompanied by new tasks that raise the marginal productivity of labor and/or when there is sufficient additional hiring in complementary sectors. Wages are unlikely to rise when workers cannot push for their share of productivity growth. Today, artificial intelligence may boost average productivity, but it also may replace many workers while degrading job quality for those who remain employed. As in Ricardo's time, the impact of automation on workers today is more complex than an automatic linkage from higher productivity to better wages.