Live data from Hacker News

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

theregister.com

231–240 of 503 posts

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

#231
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

" 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." Because, as Brad Pilon of intermittent fasting fashion repeatedly stresses, "All diets work."* * Once there is an energy deficit.

I would not say all of them but in general I agree, there is not one correct one but many correct ones.

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

#232

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…

I recently tried looking up something about local tax law in ChatGPT. It confidently told me a completely wrong rule. There are lots of sources for this, but since some probably unknowingly spread misinformation, ChatGPT just treated it as correct. Since I always verify what ChatGPT spits out, it wasn't a big deal for me, just a reminder that it's garbage in, garbage out.

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

#233

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…

> It can’t replace a human for support

It doesn’t wholly replace the need for human support agents but if it can adequately handle a substantial number of tickets that’s enough to reduce headcount.

A huge percentage of problems raised in customer support are solved by otherwise accessible resources that the user hasn’t found. And AI agents are sophisticated enough to actually action on a lot of issues that require action.

The good news is that this means human agents can focus on the actually hard problems when they’re not consumed by as much menial bullshit. The bad news for human agents is that with half the workload we’ll probably hit an equilibrium with a lot fewer people in support.

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

#235

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)…

How do you know that these layoffs are the result of AI, rather than AI being a convenient place to lay the blame? I've seen a number of companies go "AI first" and stop hiring or have layoffs (Salesforce comes to mind) but I suspect they would have been in a slump without AI entirely.

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

#236

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…

Yeah, 2023 I would expect no effect. 2024 I think generally not, wasn’t good or deployed enough. I think 2025 might be the first signs, it I still think there is a lot of plumbing and working with these things. 2026 though I expect to show an effect.

2024 was already madness for translators and graphic artists, according to my personal anecdata.

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

#237
post #145
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They will have to go back to training Why? When we've seen a sector collapse, the new jobs that rush in to fill the void are new, never seen before, and thus don't have training. You just jump in and figure things out along the way like everyone else. The problem, though, is that people usually seek out jobs that they like. When that collapses they are left reeling and aren't apt to want to embrace something new. T…

What if no jobs, or fewer jobs than before, rush in to fill the void this time? You only need so many prompt engineers when each one can replace hundreds of traditional workers.

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

#238

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…

Here’s why I don’t think it matters , because the machine is paying for everyone’s productivity boost, even your accountants. So maybe this tide will rise all boats. Time will tell.

Your accountant also is probably saving hundreds of dollars in other areas using AI assistance.

Personally I still think you should cross check with a professional.

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ea…

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

I understand your perspective, but the intention was to use a term we've all heard to reflect the thing we're all thinking about. Whether or not this is the right term to use for scenarios where the LLM emits incorrect information is not relevant to this post in particular.

> No we don't. It's really complicated. That's why diets are popular and real dietitians are expensive.

No, this is not why real dietitians are expensive. Real dietitians are expensive because they go through extensive training on a topic and are a licensed (and thus supply constrained) group. That doesn't mean they're operating without a grounding fact base.

Dietitians are not making up nutritional evidence and guidance as they go. They're operating on studies that have been done over decades of time and millions of people to understand in general what foods are linked to what outcomes. Yes, the field evolves. Yes, it requires changes over time. But to suggest we "don't know" is inconsistent with the fact that we're able to teach dietitians how to construct diets in the first place.

There are absolutely cases in which the confounding factors for a patient are unique enough such that novel human thought will be required to construct a reasonable diet plan or treatment pathway for someone. That will continue to be true in law, health, finances, etc. But there are also many, many cases where that is absolutely not the case, the presentation of the case is quite simple, and the next step actions are highly procedural.

This is not the same as saying dietitians are useless, or physicians are useless, or attorneys are useless. It is to say that, due to the supply constraints of these professions, there are always going to be fundamental limits to the amount they can produce. But there is a credible argument to be made that if we can bolster their ability to deliver the common scenarios much more effectively, we might be able to unlock some of the capacity to reach more people.

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

#240

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'm generally an AI skeptic, but it seems awfully early to make this call."

What call. Maybe some readers miss the (perhaps subtle) difference between "Generative AI is not ..." and "Generative Ai is not going to ..."

Then first can be based on fact, e.g., what has happened so far. The second is based on pure speculation. No one knows what will happen in the future. HN is continually being flooded with speculation, marketing, hype.

In contrast, this article, i.e., the paper it discusses, is is based on what has happened so far. There is no "call" being made. Only an examination of what has heppened so far. Facts not opinions.

Post reply on HN