The why is not important. The point is if there were better opportunities, they would take them. If this job didn’t exist they would either be at a worse job, or no job.
And the bigger point is that this is not an AI problem, this is a societal problem.
And the bigger point is that this is not an AI problem, this is societal problem.
You clearly present the hypothesis that the the “why” is because these happen to be the best paid jobs and therefore people take them which is a societal problem.
Please can you explain why the “why” isn’t important and you then go onto give the “why” as “societal problem”?
Perhaps it might be useful to ask “why are these the better paid jobs in these regions?” because that adds additional context which might, as you indicate the need for, start pointing in the direction of solutions to this problem other than just broadly gesturing to everything going “society”.
The why is not important. The point is if there were better opportunities, they would take them. If this job didn’t exist they would either be at a worse job, or no job.
And the bigger point is that this is not an AI problem, this is a societal problem.
So within the same comment you go from
To then say
You clearly present the hypothesis that the the “why” is because these happen to be the best paid jobs and therefore people take them which is a societal problem.
Please can you explain why the “why” isn’t important and you then go onto give the “why” as “societal problem”?
Perhaps it might be useful to ask “why are these the better paid jobs in these regions?” because that adds additional context which might, as you indicate the need for, start pointing in the direction of solutions to this problem other than just broadly gesturing to everything going “society”.
“Societal problem” is not the “why”, it’s the “how”.