Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 503 posts

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#121

Post by Zanfa »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #90
Zanfa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Search is distinct from Google's expansive ad network. Google search is now garbage, but their ads are everywhere are more profitable than ever.

On Google's earnings call - within the last couple of weeks - they explicitly stated that their stronger-than-expected growth in the quarter was due to a large unexpected increase in search revenues[0]. That's a distinct line-item from their ads business. >Google’s core search and advertising business grew almost 10 per cent to $50.7bn in the quarter, surpassing estimates for between 8 per cent and 9 per cent.[0] The…

> The "Google's search is garbage" paradigm is starting to get outdated

Quite the opposite. It's never been more true. I'm not saying using LLMs for search is better, but as it stands right now, SEO spammers have beat Google, since whatever you search for, the majority of results are AI slop.

Their increased revenue probably comes down to the fact that they no longer show any search results in the first screenful at all for mobile and they've worked hard to make ads indistinguishable from real results at a quick glance for the average user. And it's not like there exists a better alternative. Search in general sucks due to SEO.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#122

Post by chii »

fhd2 wrote: post #23
chii wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you end up causing more work down the line by saving a bit of time at an earlier stage in this case, the total cost would've gone up, and thus, eventually the stakeholder (aka, the person who pays) is going to not want to pay when the "old" way was cheaper/faster/better. > It would be better for everyone collectively to not automate certain things, but it's better for some individually, so it happens. not really, a…

That's probably true as long as the workers generally cooperate. But there's also adversarial situations. Hiring would be one example: Companies use automated CV triaging tools that make it harder to get through to a human, and candidates auto generate CVs and cover letters and even auto apply to increase their chance to get to a human. Everybody would probably be better off if neither side attempted to automate. Yet…

Right, so it's like advertising when the market is already saturated (see coca cola vs pepsi advertising).

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#123

Post by tummler »

This is shameless "AI is not bad, we swear" propaganda. Study looked at 11 occupations, 25k workers, in Denmark, in 2023-2024. How this says anything of consequence for the world at large (or even just the US) with developments moving as fast as they are, in such an unstable economic environment, is beyond me. What I do know is that I have plenty of first-hand anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#124

Post by Topfi »

pllbnk wrote: post #92
lambdaba wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will develop an eye for how AI-generated looks and that will make human creativity stand out even more. I'm expecting more creativity and less cookie-cutter content, I think AI generated content is actually the end of it.

Given that the goal of generative AI is to generate content that is virtually indistinguishable from expert creative people, I think it's one of these scenarios: 1. If the goal is achieved, which is highly unlikely, then we get very very close to AGI and all bets are off. 2. If the goal is not achieved and we stay in this uncanny valley territory (not at the bottom of it but not being able to climb out either), then…

> If the goal is achieved, which is highly unlikely, then we get very very close to AGI and all bets are off.

Question on two fronts:

1. Why do you think, considering the current rate of progress think it is very unlikely that LLM output becomes indistinguishable from expert creatives? Especially considering a lot of tells people claim to see are easily alleviated by prompting.

2. Why do you think a model whose output reaches that goal would rise in any way to what we’d consider AGI?

Personally, I feel the opposite. The output is likely to reach that level in the coming years, yet AGI is still far away from being reached once that has happened.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#125

Post by cynicalsecurity »

decimalenough wrote: post #88

I'm generally an AI skeptic, but it seems awfully early to make this call. Aside from the obvious frontline support, artist, junior coder etc, a whole bunch of white collar "pay me for advice on X" jobs (dietician, financial advice, tax agent, etc), where the advice follows set patterns only mildly tailored for the recipient, seem to be severely at risk. Example: I recently used Gemini for some tax advice that would…

Not consulting a real tax advisor is probably going to cost you much more.

I wouldn't be saving on tax advisors. Moreover, I would hire two different tax advisors, so I could cross check them.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#126

Post by twoodfin »

jspdown wrote: post #52
paulsutter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this a worry? Sounds wonderful

I'm a bit worried about the social impacts. When a sector collapses and become irrelevant, all its workers no longer need to be employed. Some will no longer have any useful qualifications and won't be able to find another job. They will have to go back to training and find a different activity. It's fine if it's an isolated event. Much worse when the event is repeated in many sectors almost simultaneously.

As others in this thread have pointed out, this is basically what happened in the relatively short period of 1995 to 2015 with the rise of global wireless internet telecommunications & software platforms.

Many, many industries and jobs transformed or were relegated to much smaller niches.

Overall it was great.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#127

Post by pclmulqdq »

decimalenough wrote: post #88

I'm generally an AI skeptic, but it seems awfully early to make this call. Aside from the obvious frontline support, artist, junior coder etc, a whole bunch of white collar "pay me for advice on X" jobs (dietician, financial advice, tax agent, etc), where the advice follows set patterns only mildly tailored for the recipient, seem to be severely at risk. Example: I recently used Gemini for some tax advice that would…

Ironically, your example is what you used to get from a Google search back when Google wasn't aggressively monetized and enshittified.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#128

Post by Avicebron »

mr_toad wrote: post #115
decimalenough wrote: post #88

I'm generally an AI skeptic, but it seems awfully early to make this call. Aside from the obvious frontline support, artist, junior coder etc, a whole bunch of white collar "pay me for advice on X" jobs (dietician, financial advice, tax agent, etc), where the advice follows set patterns only mildly tailored for the recipient, seem to be severely at risk. Example: I recently used Gemini for some tax advice that would…

> I recently used Gemini for some tax advice that would have cost hundreds of dollars to get from a licensed tax agent. That’s like buying a wrench and changing your own spark plugs. Wrenches are not putting mechanics out of business.

Depends on how good the wrench is, if I can walk over to the wrench, kick it, say change my spark plugs now you fuck, and it does so instantly and for free and doesn't complain....

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#129

Post by notTooFarGone »

soared wrote: post #99
decimalenough wrote: post #88

I'm generally an AI skeptic, but it seems awfully early to make this call. Aside from the obvious frontline support, artist, junior coder etc, a whole bunch of white collar "pay me for advice on X" jobs (dietician, financial advice, tax agent, etc), where the advice follows set patterns only mildly tailored for the recipient, seem to be severely at risk. Example: I recently used Gemini for some tax advice that would…

Similairly, while not perfect I use AI to help redesign my landscaping by uploading a picture of my yard and having it come up with different options. Also took a picture of my tire while at the garage and asked it if I really needed new tires or not. Took a picture of my sprinkler box and had it figure out what was going on. Potentially all situations where I would’ve paid (or paid more than I already was) a local l…

So in the coming few years on the question whether or not to change your tires, a suggestions for shops in your area will come with a recommendation to change them. Do you think you would trust the outcome?

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#130

Post by atrus »

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #105
decimalenough wrote: post #88

I'm generally an AI skeptic, but it seems awfully early to make this call. Aside from the obvious frontline support, artist, junior coder etc, a whole bunch of white collar "pay me for advice on X" jobs (dietician, financial advice, tax agent, etc), where the advice follows set patterns only mildly tailored for the recipient, seem to be severely at risk. Example: I recently used Gemini for some tax advice that would…

It can’t replace a human for support, it is not even close to replacing a junior developer. It can’t replace any advice job because it lies instead of erroring. As an example if you want diet advice, it can lie to you very convincingly so there is no point in getting advice from it. Main value you get from a programmer is they understand what they are doing and they can take the responsibility of what they are develo…

> As an example if you want diet advice, it can lie to you very convincingly so there is no point in getting advice from it.

How exactly is this different from getting advice from someone who acts confidently knowledgeable? Diet advice is an especially egregious example, since I can have 40 different dieticians give me 72 different diet/meal plans with them saying 100% certainty that this is the correct one.

It's bad enough the AI marketers push AI as some all knowing, correct oracle, but when the anti-ai people use that as the basis for their arguments, it's somehow more annoying.

Trust but verify is still a good rule here, no matter the source, human or otherwise.

Post reply on HN