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

I'm not worried about AI job loss

davidoks.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 582 posts

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#261

Post by dakolli »

qudat wrote: post #183
dakolli wrote: post #165

When we created cars that replaced buggies, that came with new machines for manufacturing, who need mechanics. The same for most physical automation. When we automated pen and paper business processes with SaaS, we created new managment positions, and new software jobs. LLMs don't create anything new, they simply replace human computer i/o, with tokens. That's it, leaving the humans who are replaced to fight for a li…

Creative destruction is a fundamental component of economic growth and has been happening since economies were part of humanity. You are thinking too linearly. When the price of goods and services go down because the cost to produce those goods are services decreases, that means things are cheaper. Now that things are cheaper we have more money to spend on other goods or services. Who knows what industries will be cr…

So why did are companies laying of 100s of thousands of people, 400k in SWE alone in 16 months during a bull market where equities and profits are at all time highs? How come the January jobs report was so terrible, January is historically the best month for jobs, its downhill from here.

Do you walk around with a blindfold on? Are you extremely privileged? Sounds like it. Tell this to the 25% of new college grads that have been unemployed for 12 months, or working as a barista with 100k in debt. Eventually they'll be knocking on your penthouse/mansion door.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#262

Post by dakolli »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #222
dakolli wrote: post #165

When we created cars that replaced buggies, that came with new machines for manufacturing, who need mechanics. The same for most physical automation. When we automated pen and paper business processes with SaaS, we created new managment positions, and new software jobs. LLMs don't create anything new, they simply replace human computer i/o, with tokens. That's it, leaving the humans who are replaced to fight for a li…

> Are we supposed to just all go work at a datacenter or in the semiconductor industry (until they automate that too)? Datacenters are very automated. They already don't require many people and they're going to be needing less and less humans in them going forward. Semiconductor manufacturing is also very heavily automated.

That is my point, llms replace more jobs than they theoretically create (datacenter/semiconductor manufacturing demand).

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#264

Post by ddtaylor »

beeflet wrote: post #210
ddtaylor wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the people flipping the burgers and serving the customers will be safe, but the accountants and marketing folks won't be. And that's probably something most people are okay with. Work that can be automated should be and humans should be spending their time on novel things instead of labor if possible.

all jobs will be automatable, and there will be no room for humans to work on novel things.

That's like saying we shouldn't push the space exploration boundary because people are so used to staying within it.

If you want to make the argument that singularity has occurred and that knowledge oracles are no longer needed, that's a bold claim.

If you want to make the argument it would escape our control, etc. that's a valid argument for proper controls.

If you want to make the argument that LLMs are sentient and that it's not ethical to "enslave" them, that's also a pretty bold stance currently.

Humans have been inventing technology and improving the quality of life (of our species!) for a very long time and that strategy hasn't changed IMO

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#265

Post by initramfs2 »

rjbwork wrote: post #179
fourside wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also need a system that is ok with giving you some of said abundance without you working. Last year the US voted to hand over the reigns, in all branches of government, to a party whose philosophy is to slash government spending and reduce people’s dependence on the government. To all the US futurists who are fantasizing about a post-scarcity world where we no longer work, I’d like to understand how that fits in…

The thing a lot of people leave out is that literally billions must die for this to happen. In some fully automated world everyone except for a few tens of thousands of the owner class and their technicians will be unneeded. And then what to do?

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Dividing infinity by 1m or 1b doesn't matter if it's really infinite. Just make more machines to make the machines. The existential crisis happens afterwards, and people will kill themselves off without the need for any class warfare at all. In fact the owner class will die first since there will be no more conception of ownership, since everything is supposedly abundant and at your fingertips.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#266

Post by johnnyanmac »

simianwords wrote: post #247
RevEng wrote: post #101

I was with the author on everything except one point: increasing automation will not leave us with such abundance that we never have to work again. We have heard that lie for over a century. The stream engine didn't do it, electricity didn't do it, computers didn't do it, the Internet didn't do it, and AI won't either. The truth is that as input costs drop, sales prices drop and demand increases - just like the parad…

You are painting this like it’s a bad thing. The workers decided that they would rather have higher working time to buy more things! A lot of people would not choose to work for half the time as they do now because they do actually like to buy things.

I'd happily work for 20 hours @200k a year. It'd give me time to work on my own projects.

Issue is that virtually no company offers that deal unless you already have noteriety or money at the level of retiring anyway.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#267

Post by ddtaylor »

saulpw wrote: post #252
ddtaylor wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the on-premise employees do little else than heat it up This is correct. This also is a lot more complex than it sounds and creates a lot of work. Cooking those products creates byproducts that must be handled. > and the cashiers have largely been replaced by self-order terminals so that employees no longer even need to speak rudimentary English Yet most of the customers still have to interact with an employee…

> Cooking those products creates byproducts that must be handled. Okay so the job of "cook" just became "grease disposal engineer"? > Yet most of the customers still have to interact with an employee because "the kiosk won't let me" That hasn't stopped some places I've visited from only allowing people to order from the kiosk. Literally I've said something to the person behind the counter who pointed to the iPad and…

> Okay so the job of "cook" just became "grease disposal engineer"?

That is the current way the job works. The idea that even the most basic "burger flipper" job is isolated into a single dimension (flipping a burger) is false. That worker has to get supplies, prepare ingredients, stage them between cooking, dispose of waste product, etc.

> Literally I've said something to the person behind the counter who pointed to the iPad and when I said I wanted something else, shrugged and said we can't do that.

That's because corporate told them to maximize kiosk usage or because the employee was lazy. That's always going to happen. The McDonalds in Union Station DC has broken glass on the floor, because it's a shithole and the employees don't care, but it means not much else IMO

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#268

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

initramfs2 wrote: post #259
RevEng wrote: post #101

I was with the author on everything except one point: increasing automation will not leave us with such abundance that we never have to work again. We have heard that lie for over a century. The stream engine didn't do it, electricity didn't do it, computers didn't do it, the Internet didn't do it, and AI won't either. The truth is that as input costs drop, sales prices drop and demand increases - just like the parad…

I am also fairly certain that if we do arrive at some abundant utopia where you can wish for anything can have it arrive, society will collapse. It's just bringing up 7 billion (probably more) spoiled brats at that point of time. Work on its own is also a form of "social control". Idle hands are the devil's tools etc.

Throughout history, big advances have come from humans having more "idle time", so we should be aiming for the population to be less busy as they can then hopefully focus on pursuing the arts or sciences.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#269

Post by mlinhares »

initramfs2 wrote: post #265
rjbwork wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing a lot of people leave out is that literally billions must die for this to happen. In some fully automated world everyone except for a few tens of thousands of the owner class and their technicians will be unneeded. And then what to do?

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Dividing infinity by 1m or 1b doesn't matter if it's really infinite. Just make more machines to make the machines. The existential crisis happens afterwards, and people will kill themselves off without the need for any class warfare at all. In fact the owner class will die first since there will be no more conception of ownership, since everything is supposedly abundant and at…

You really believe today's billionaire class will just give up their power over the populace? A world of abundance means the billionaires are irrelevant because everyone would have access to everything and they would never let that happen.

They will hoard the resources, land, anything that is needed for people to stay alive.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#270

Post by NegativeK »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #268
initramfs2 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also fairly certain that if we do arrive at some abundant utopia where you can wish for anything can have it arrive, society will collapse. It's just bringing up 7 billion (probably more) spoiled brats at that point of time. Work on its own is also a form of "social control". Idle hands are the devil's tools etc.

Throughout history, big advances have come from humans having more "idle time", so we should be aiming for the population to be less busy as they can then hopefully focus on pursuing the arts or sciences.

Big advances have also come from some of the most violent, destructive wars the planet has seen.

I agree with you on principle, but I don't think it's straightforward as your point states.

Post reply on HN