The article doesn't seem to take his train of thought quite far enough. If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market? And ultimately, if AI gets to be so good that it can competently do a lawyer's job, what reason do big law…
> If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market? Money. They won't have the money to pay for the tokens, or the best models, because they'll be unemployed. They also won't have the connections to get the clients. When you're…
The dead economy theory
961–970 of 1001 posts
Re: The dead economy theory
#962Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry that's no realistic. People start businesses, including law firms, all the time with little to no capital. Assuming token costs will be prohibitive assumes: A) tokens will be really expensive and B) you need to fund tokens before you have revenue. Your asserting AI makes the economy more capital intensive, when I think you'll see in practice it's the opposite.
> People start businesses, including law firms, all the time with little to no capital. Those people are usually very talented and work 16/7. And they need to convince other similar people to work for them, usually at a lower-than-market rate. The premise here is "talented humans working hard" will stop being a valuable thing due to AI.
They're similar to IT, in that you can be successful as a one-man business.
Re: The dead economy theory
#963Re: The dead economy theory
#964as AI become more agentic i think this will be gradually replaced by AI buying stuff from other AI...
either people + AI is better so people just merge with AI or pure AI is better and AI takes over
Re: The dead economy theory
#965Re: The dead economy theory
#966The article doesn't seem to take his train of thought quite far enough. If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market? And ultimately, if AI gets to be so good that it can competently do a lawyer's job, what reason do big law…
You realize that the limit of this is that the only people worth existing is the people with capital? > I foresee a wave of entrepreneurship coming. AI will empower more people to provide useful services directly to other people, with less middlemen and menial work, and more direct problem solving. Why do I need to buy products/services from this startups when I can just reverse engineer their product and use all my…
Why software companies pay for software instead of making it themselves?
Same reason
Re: The dead economy theory
#967Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would everyone want to do everything themselves? No comparative advantage at all and infinitely capable robots?
The entire discussion is predicated on the arrival of an AI future where AI can do any human labor at incredibly low costs and all but eliminating the value of human expertise. If getting something done resembles "doing everything themselves" then that future did not arrive.
The article makes clear, it is describing not a hypothetical future trend, but the trend that we are seeing today, where you don't actually get that much more productivity by replacing people with today's AI, you actually probably lose more than a bit, but it's still a good deal for business anyway, because they would rather pay AI companies than people about the same amount of money to do about the same amount of work.
Re: The dead economy theory
#968It's just a grab bag of arguments thrown into one long rant, and as some comments here point out, some very obvious contingencies (which even have supporting data now) have not been considered.
All this and not a single mention of the very obvious thesis that the real problem is Capitalism.
Seriously, go through each point and see how it can be traced to Capitalism. Why do these CEOs keep telling everybody there will be social upheaval and yet continue building this technology? Because Capitalism demands infinite growth in profits, and if they don't build it someone will! Why do people feel lost without a job? Because Capitalism tells them they are worthless without any "productivity" (Hmm, wonder why "starving artists" were a thing. Maybe that's also why they were so derided: the system didn't like people who found self-worth independent of economic "productivity.")
Now, Capitalism is the problem, but also potentially the solution. Here's a dynamic that doesn't seem to have been covered in these discussions:
1. The majority of economic activity is generated in supporting the economy itself. We know what happens when everyone loses a job: the economy shrinks drastically (the "Bust.") TFA claims "plenty will still happen" and "GDP might even grow" but handwaves away what that would be.
2. The wealthiest are so wealthy because they essentially take a cut of the economy. So their wealth depends on the economy growing. They are ruthless capitalists and don't care about us, but Capitalism demands growth and they are monomaniacally driven by it.
3. As such their interests are aligned in keeping the economy growing and labor compensated and spending. Yes, they have their doomsday bunkers just in case, but none of them wants that life (where's the growth?!?) and they know it.
Add to that governments, all influences considered, are also overwhelmingly invested in keeping the population happy.
I don't know what the solution will look like, but all the parties involved -- the people, the elites, and the governments -- are heavily incentivized to keep things stable. Something will get worked out.
Re: The dead economy theory
#969The article doesn't seem to take his train of thought quite far enough. If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market? And ultimately, if AI gets to be so good that it can competently do a lawyer's job, what reason do big law…
Yes, and there is already preliminary data showing this trend: https://news.linkedin.com/2025/breaking-the-trend--small-bus...