ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did • Hacker News Board

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#151

Post by ozozozd » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:01 PM UTC

twosdai wrote: post #75

I really enjoyed this article, I didn't bridge the idea of an ATM and mobile banking. I think the idea raised about "Automated Firms" is a bit off in the picture painted in that linked article. I think the David Oks intention is to paint a picture of a fully automated company, but the linked article gives this impression: > Future AI firms won’t be constrained by what's scarce or abundant in human skill distributions…

Also, employing “infinite intelligence” by splitting it into “workers” and organizing them into firms cannot be farther than a paradigm change.

It’s strictly an attempt to shoehorn the new tech into an existing paradigm, just because right now the system prompt makes an “agent” behave differently than the one with a different prompt.

It’s unimaginative to say the least.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#152

Post by Waterluvian » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:02 PM UTC

I was born in the mid-80s and I've never had a bank teller experience. For me growing up, the bank teller was simply the tech support person for my debit card.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#153

Post by keeda » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:06 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #35

One key line about ATMs is buried deep in the article: > the number of tellers per branch fell by more than a third between 1988 and 2004, but the number of urban bank branches (also encouraged by a wave of bank deregulation allowing more branches) rose by more than 40 percent So, ATMs did impact bank teller jobs by a significant amount. A third of them were made redundant. It's just that the decrease at individual b…

I don't think it will, but I also think it's not all doom and gloom.

I think it would be a mistake to look at this solely through the lens of history. Yes, the historical record is unbroken, but if you compare the broad characteristics of the new jobs created to the old jobs displaced by technology, they are the same every time: they required higher-level (a) cognitive (b) technical or (c) social skills.

That's it. There is no other dimension to upskill along.

And LLMs are good at all three, probably better than most people already by many metrics. (Yes even social; their infinite patience is the ultimate advantage. Prompt injection is an unsolved hurdle though, so some relief there.)

Plus AI is improving extremely rapidly. Which means it is probably advancing faster than most people can upskill.

An increasingly accepted premise is that AI can displace junior employees but will need senior employees to steer it. Consider the ratio of junior to senior employees, and how long it takes for the former to grow into the latter. That is the volume of displacement and timeframe we're looking at.

Never in history have we had a technology that was so versatile and rapidly advancing that it could displace a large portion of existing jobs, as well as many new jobs that would be created.

However, what few people are talking about is the disintermediating effect of AI on the power of capital. If individuals can now do the work of entire teams, companies don't need many of them. But by the same token(s) (heheh) individuals don't need money, and hence companies, to start something and keep it going either! I think that gives the bottom side of the K-shaped economy a fighting chance to equalize.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#154

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

eloisant wrote: post #141

dylan604 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like someone forgetting that for a large number of people, their mobile device is their only computer.

That wasn't true before smartphones, everyone had a computer so they could access the Internet. Except maybe in developing countries - but the article is about the US.

At one point, humans had not stepped on the moon. At one point, we didn't know about antibiotics. At one point....

It doesn't matter what used to be, we're discussing what is now. We now have mobile devices that are much cheaper for people to obtain than a computer. For most, that device is more powerful than a computer they could afford. Arguing the fact that a vast number of people's only compute device is their mobile is just arguing with a fence post. It serves no purpose.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#155

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #35

One key line about ATMs is buried deep in the article: > the number of tellers per branch fell by more than a third between 1988 and 2004, but the number of urban bank branches (also encouraged by a wave of bank deregulation allowing more branches) rose by more than 40 percent So, ATMs did impact bank teller jobs by a significant amount. A third of them were made redundant. It's just that the decrease at individual b…

[deleted]

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#156

Post by graemep » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:09 PM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #43

ahartmetz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in Europe where the situation is different: checks haven't been used in appreciable numbers for 30 years or so. It's all online or paper transfer orders. If you get a pre-filled paper transfer order, you can type (or scan and OCR I suppose) the same data into the online form.

Your grandma doesn't give you a $10 check for your birthday in Europe? What about manufacturer rebates?

I am in the UK and I have received two cheques in the last year, both for small amounts.

As it turned out, my bank rejected both because they were made out to [middle name] [surname] rather than [firstname] [surname]. Ironically the former is unique (probably) whereas they had another customer with the latter.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#157

Post by sothatsit » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:10 PM UTC

twosdai wrote: post #75

I really enjoyed this article, I didn't bridge the idea of an ATM and mobile banking. I think the idea raised about "Automated Firms" is a bit off in the picture painted in that linked article. I think the David Oks intention is to paint a picture of a fully automated company, but the linked article gives this impression: > Future AI firms won’t be constrained by what's scarce or abundant in human skill distributions…

That is why a fully automated firm would be a paradigm shift. Instead of requiring someone to be responsible and to QA things, you just let AI systems be responsible internally, and the company responsible as a whole for legal concerns.

This idea of an automated firm relies on the premise that AI will become more capable and reliable than people.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#158

Post by ericwebb » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

If I have to physically still go to the bank, it really hasn't disrupted much. The iPhone created an opportunity... the banks investing around the technology is the disruption. ATM itself couldn't unlock as much which I suppose is the paradigm mentioned in the article.

AI is more iPhone than ATM IMO.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#159

Post by rkomorn » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #127

rkomorn wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? I lived in the US for 20+ years until 2021 and, though there were definitely more checks than I see in Europe now, the frequency with which I used them was approaching zero, which definitely wouldn't qualify as "stubbornly check-focused".

I'm in the US and things are definitely less check-centric than they used to be but I still probably write or receive a couple a month.

I guess there's also a difference between "can use checks" vs "have to use checks" because, aside from rent, I can't recall having to write checks.

Everything else allowed either credit card or direct debit on top of allowing checks.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#160

Post by acatnamedjoe » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

nonameiguess wrote: post #94

ahartmetz wrote: post #7

I do not get what's special about banking apps as opposed to online banking. I've been doing online banking in the browser on a PC since before apps and I'm still doing it because dealing with data on a phone is painful compared to a PC. Is an app really that much easier to use?

I'm always a bit confused in these discussions what is special about banking software of any kind at all. My bank has an app, but other than checking a balance every now and again, the only reason I use it is because it's also my insurance provider and I make claims through it. For actual banking, I don't really do any, through the website or the app. My pay is direct deposit. My purchases are on credit with payment…

I have a personal current account, a shared current account with my wife, and several savings accounts. It is frequently necessary to move money between these accounts.

Also, here in the UK we don't really use Venmo or anything like that, so normally transferring cash to and from friends and family happens by bank transfer as well.