Automation enables founders to grow companies with fewer and fewer employees

in that case you should bet on yourself and start your own company. It comes down to risk and reward

He wasn't even working on Minecraft when Mojang sold to Microsoft. Jens Bergensten was the lead developer for years before the sale went through.

> You still occasionally hear people saying that founders don't deserve to be rich, because their employees created all the value.

Nobody is saying this. As evidenced by several threads here, opinions are far more nuanced.

Graham will always defend founders "deserving" their wealth, as if it is some technical argument rather than a political one.

It's an entirely subjective point. If a solo founder with some very powerful machinery (cloud, AI) produces a lot of economical value, it's quite questionable to attribute that value solely to the human being pushing the button.

Even more so when that human has exclusive access to the key input for the machine: capital. Somehow all investment capital has ended up in the hands of about 100 people, which is then gatekept and redistributed to founders "advancing society" with unfortunate side effect it producing even more money for the people that can't seem to get rid of it.

Surely that starting point, that capital concentration, is justified based on pure merit and brilliance, these people being a 100.000 times smarter than the average person? Or was it because they were insiders of the financial system, riding the bust and booms of our perverted stock market whilst producing zero tangible value?

As for the point of labor, you operate machinery largely based on open source. For which you will not pay a cent whilst said open source maintainers can barely make ends meet and instead of praise, gets lemons. As for your fancy AI model, you trained it on other people's labor, and again refuse to compensate. And yet still you dare to claim that all this value produced is yours to keep.

As for "advancing society", we can take a clue from China. They concluded that whilst SV for sure pumps around a lot of money, it's frankly a joke. Tech that produces addiction and ads, undermines employees (Uber, food delivery), externalizing all negatives to society as "people that add value" tend to do. So China killed most of the sector and refocuses on serious tech. Tech focusing on actual human needs. Supply chain, health, mobility, infrastructure. I know, weird concept.

Bottom line, if I were a filthy rich founder, I'd totally shut up about it and hope nobody notices.

> The industrial revolution actually led to an increase in the size of the workforce. New qualifications were required to handle technically-complex industrial equipment instead of the simple production methods of the pre-industrial world.

This is generally true, but also ignores a key difference. When processes first became mechanized and then industrialized, they we're fairly similar in their nature. Sure, they were different and did require some qualifications, but in the end the imaginary jump from a blacksmith to someone who works in an manufacturing plant building components out of metal is not too severe. With the increasing automation, the jump would be from a machine operator to a software engineer/automation engineer. While this are certainly all teachable skills, they require an extremely different skill profile than the ones they're replacing.

Overall, automation is nothing new. And although the capabilities continue to develop from a manufacturing standpoint, there is nothing disruptive about most new things in that area. With the tasks that are currently not automated, the cost is mostly the limiting factor, closely followed by technical complexity. And while there is certainly some change in terms of costs coming down thanks to technological advancements, it's still not completely disruptive. But that is all for blue collar work.

But what I think is overlooked way too often overlooked is white collar work. Working in a large company myself, I very frequently witnessed people whose job was essentially the human equivalent of a for loop with a bunch of if conditions. These jobs were hard to automate efficiently, mostly because of the lack of consistently digitally accessible process artifacts, but that is continuing to change. As (traditional) companies continue to shift towards completely digital business, it will become increasingly easy to automate "paper pusher" jobs like these.

Beyond that, I hate to be that person, AI will likely have an impact as well. Recent developments, namely GTP-3 or ChatGPT, have shown the current level of AI. And while there things to be criticized about those models and their abilities are still limited, they are significantly more advanced than what most people (outside of those closely following) deemed possible. And while they lack the creativity for original work, these models are already very good at transferring knowledge. And considering that many jobs don't necessarily need original problem solving skills, I can see how automation can have an impact there. It might not completely automate people away, but it certainly has to potential to boost productivity significantly.

But will it really put many people out of jobs? Who knows. Given the less than ideal demographic structure of many (european) countries, companies operating here do certainly need any productivity boost they can get. As for countries without those demographic issues? Who knows.

Generally my experience in automation projects: the people who many think will be the first ones to be automated away, the people doing the actually physical work, are significantly safer than the ones not expecting it. No matter how much AI or 3D printing houses you throw at the problem