Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by Smeevy » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:35 PM UTC

atrus wrote: post #197

bluefirebrand wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inventing answers is lying If I ask it how to accomplish a task with the C standard library and it tells me to use a function that doesn't exist in the C standard library, that's not just "wrong" that is a fabrication. It is a lie

Lying requires intent to deceive. If you ask me to remove whitespace from a string in Python and I mistakenly tell you use ".trim()" (the Java method, a mistake I've made annoyingly too much) instead of ".strip()", am I lying to you? It's not a lie. It's just wrong.

An LLM is not "just wrong" either. It's just bullshit.

The bullshitter doesn't care about if what they say is true or false or right or wrong. They just put out more bullshit.

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

#222

Post by bwfan123 » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

Macha wrote: post #47

piva00 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was discussing with a colleague the past months, my view on how and why all these AI tools are being shoved down our throats (just look at Google's Gemini push into all enterprise tools, it's like Google+ for B2B) before there are clear cut use-cases you can point to and say "yes, this would have been much harder to do without LLM/AI" is because... Training data is the most valuable asset, all these tools are just…

It seems very simple cause and effect from a economic standpoint. Hype about AI is very high, so investors ask boards what they're doing about AI and using it, because they think AI will disrupt investments that don't. The boards in turn instruct the CEOs to "adopt AI" and so you get all the normal processes about deciding what/if/when to do stuff get short circuited and so you get AI features that no one asked for o…

LLMs have mesmerized us, because, they are able to communicate meaning to us.

Fundamentally, we (the recipient of llm output) are generating the meaning from the words given. ie, llms are great when the recipient of their output is a human.

But, when their recipient is a machine, the model breaks down, because, machine to machine requires deterministic interactions. this is the weakness I see - regardless of all the hype about llm agents. fundamentally, the llms are not deterministic machines.

LLMs lack a fundamental human capability of deterministic symbolization - which is to create NEW symbols with associated rules which can deterministically model worlds we interact with. They have a long way to go on this.

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

#223

Post by boredtofears » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

smallnix wrote: post #87

clarionbell wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is deglobalizing. EU has been cutting off from Russia since the war started, and forcing medical industries to reshore since covid. At the same time it has begun drive to remilitarize itself. This means more heavy industry and all of it local. There is brewing conflict across continents. India and Pakistan, Red sea region, South China sea. The list goes on and on. It's time to accept it. The world has moved…

> Global connectedness is holding steady at a record high level based on the latest data available in early 2025, highlighting the resilience of international flows in the face of geopolitical tensions and uncertainty. https://www.dhl.com/global-en/microsites/core/global-connect... Source for counter argument?

"Nothing to see here, folks! Keep shipping your stuff internationally!"

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

#224

Post by bluefirebrand » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

atrus wrote: post #197

bluefirebrand wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inventing answers is lying If I ask it how to accomplish a task with the C standard library and it tells me to use a function that doesn't exist in the C standard library, that's not just "wrong" that is a fabrication. It is a lie

Lying requires intent to deceive. If you ask me to remove whitespace from a string in Python and I mistakenly tell you use ".trim()" (the Java method, a mistake I've made annoyingly too much) instead of ".strip()", am I lying to you? It's not a lie. It's just wrong.

You are correct that there is a difference between lying and making a mistake, however

> Lying requires intent to deceive

LLMs do have an intent to deceive, built in!

They have been built to never admit they don't know an answer, so they will invent answers based on faulty premises

I agree that for a human mixing up ".trim()" and ".strip()" is an honest mistake

In the example I gave you are asking for a function that does not exist. If it invents a function, because it is designed to never say "you are wrong that doesn't exist" or "I don't know the answer" that seems to qualify to me as "intent to deceive" because it is designed to invent something rather than give you a negative sounding answer

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

#225

Post by throwaway35364 » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

solfox wrote: post #159

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it actually works like that, it'll be just like all labor-saving innovations, going back to the loom and printing press and the like; people will lose their job, but it'll be local / individual tragedies, the large scale economic impact will likely be positive. It'd still suck to lose your job / vocation though, and some of those won't be able to find a new job.

Honestly, much of work under capitalism is meaningless (see: The Office). The optimistic take is that many of those same paper-pushing roles could evolve into far more meaningful work—with the right training and opportunity (also AI). When the car was invented, entire industries tied to horses collapsed. But those that evolved, leveled up: Blacksmiths became auto mechanics and metalworkers, etc. As a creatively minde…

> The optimistic take is that many of those same paper-pushing roles could evolve into far more meaningful work—with the right training and opportunity (also AI).

There already isn't enough meaningful work for everyone. We see people with the "right training" failing to find a job. AI is already making things worse by eliminating meaningful jobs — art, writing, music production are no longer viable career paths.

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

#226

Post by naming_the_user » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

atrus wrote: post #162

DharmaPolice wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a junior developer lies about something important, they can be fired and you can try to find someone else who wouldn't do the same thing. At the very least you could warn the person not to lie again or they're gone. It's not clear that you can do the same thing with an LLM as they don't know they've lied.

You're falling into the mistake of "correct" or "lied" though. Being wrong isn't lying .

It’s more like bullshitting which is inbetween the two. Basically, like that guy who always has some story to tell. He’s not lying as such, he’s just waffling.

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

#227

Post by dingnuts » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

colinmorelli wrote: post #103

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…

This is the real value of AI that, I think, we're just starting to get into. It's less about automating workflows that are inherently unstructured (I think that we're likely to continue wanting humans for this for some time). It's more about automating workflows that are already procedural and/or protocolized, but where information gathering is messy and unstructured (I.e. some facets of law, health, finance, etc). U…

"Hallucination" implies that the LLM holds some relationship to truth. Output from an LLM is not a hallucination, it's bullshit[0].

> Using your dietician example: we often know quite well what types of foods to eat or avoid based on your nutritional needs

No we don't. It's really complicated. That's why diets are popular and real dietitians are expensive. and I would know, I've had to use one to help me manage an eating disorder!

There is already so much bullshit in the diet space that adding AI bullshit (again, using the technical definition of bullshit here) only stands to increase the value of an interaction with a person with knowledge.

And that's without getting into what happens when brand recommendations are baked into the training data.

0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5

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

#228

Post by Workaccount2 » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

notTooFarGone wrote: post #129

soared wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I am hoping that there will always be premium paid options for LLMs, and thus the onus would be on the user whether or not they want biased answers.

These will likely be cell-phone-plan level expensive, but the value prop would still be excellent.

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

#229

Post by ponector » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:42 PM UTC

akshaybhalotia wrote: post #219

I humbly disagree. I've seen team members and sometimes entire teams being laid off because of AI. It's also not just layoffs, the hiring processes and demand have been affected as well. As an example, many companies have recently shifted their support to "AI first" models. As a result, even if the team or certain team members haven't been fired, the general trend of hiring for support is pretty much down (anecdotal)…

AI is not hurting jobs in Denmark they said.

Software development jobs there have bigger threat: outsourcing to cheaper locations.

As well for teachers: it is hard to replace a person supervising kids with a chatbot.

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

#230

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:43 PM UTC

aaronbaugher wrote: post #161

ryandrake wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people’s (USA) taxes are not complex, and just require basic arithmetic to complete. Even topics like stock sales, IRA rollovers, HSAs, and rental income (which the vast majority of taxpayers don’t have) are straightforward if you just read the instructions on the forms and follow them. In 30 years of paying taxes, I’ve only had a tax professional do it once: as an experiment after I already did them myself to s…

I'm one of those weird kids who liked doing those puzzles where you had to walk through a list of tricky instructions and end up with the right answers, so I'm pretty good at that sort of thing. I also have fairly simple finances: a regular W-2 job and a little side income that doesn't have taxes withdrawn. But last year the IRS sent me a $450 check and a note that said I'd made a mistake on my taxes and paid too muc…

I don't think it makes you weird, and taxes really aren't that much of a puzzle to put together, outside of the many deduction-related edge cases (which you can skip if you just take the standard deduction). My federal and state returns last year added up to 36 pages, not counting the attachments listing investment sales. Still, they're pretty straightforward. I now at least use online software to do them, but that's only to save time filling out forms, not for the software's "expertise." I have no doubt I could do them by hand if I wanted to give myself more writing to do.

If I can do this, most people can do a simple 2-page 1040EZ.