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

#181

Post by twosdai » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:50 PM UTC

ozozozd wrote: post #151

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.

Yeah, I think if there is some sort of super intelligence, the idea would be that it would make the system of computers and computation irrelevant entirely. Now that would be novel.

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

#182

Post by esseph » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:51 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #174

esseph wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why use AI to build software for automating specific tasks, when you can just have the AI automate those tasks directly? Speed, cost, security, job/task management Next question

> Speed, cost, security, job/task management All of that will inevitably be solved. 50 years ago, using a personal computer was an extravagant luxury. Until it wasn't. 30 years ago, carrying a powerful computer in your pocket was unthinkable. Until it wasn't. Right now, it's cheaper to run your accounting math on dedicated adder hardware. But Llms will only get cheaper. When you can run massive LLMs locally on your p…

Not until power access/generation is MUCH cheaper. Long, long, long way off.

If I can run 50,000 fixed tasks that cost me $0.834/hr but OpenAI is costing $37/hr and the automation takes 40x as long and can make TERRIBLE errors why the fuck would I not move to the deterministic system?

Also, battery life of mobile devices.

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

#183

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

eloisant wrote: post #139

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?

No, the article is wrong about the iPhone. It's the Internet that killed bank tellers.

Best way to get clicks without publishing something of substance is to publish something wrong. If the article was titled "The internet killed bank teller jobs", then people would think "duh" and no one would click on it.

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

#184

Post by bobtheborg » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #89

freedomben wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My PC has had a scanner connected to it for over 20 years, and in the mid 00s I was scanning and depositing checks through my bank's website (USAA). Even with modern cameras and fancy smarphone software, the results you get from a PC scan are still much better than taking a picture with your phone. If you don't have a scanner, nearly all laptops have a webcam built in, and many people have one for their desktop as we…

> My PC has had a scanner connected to it for over 20 years You're basically the only person in America doing this. Tens of millions of folks are just scanning it with the app on their phone and it's objectively a much better experience lol. The resolution of the photo taken on your smartphone is beyond good enough, there's no need to over-engineer something here. > You can't invade the user's privacy nearly as well…

Make that two people. I much prefer to slap the rare check on the scanner than fiddle with the phone. My banks "scan the check" part of the app was buggy for a long time, so maybe that jaded me. (~"move closer", ~"move away", ~"increase lighting"...)

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

#185

Post by carlosjobim » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:58 PM UTC

irjustin wrote: post #88

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…

> But will it? No, because if you think about Startrek the endgame is replicators. Well the concept that 100% of basic needs are met. At some point work becomes unnecessary for a society to function.

We have to grow out of those kind of dreams. That's like a kid dreaming that when he grows up he'll eat ice cream for dinner every day.

People when they mature have an innate desire to work. It is good for body and mind. If you're curious about the world, you'll have to do some work one way or another to achieve your goals and satisfy your curiosity.

If "society" is just a function of basic needs, then there's plenty of places in the world to visit where people live like that and use any excess energy in endless fighting against each other instead of work.

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

#186

Post by whatisthiseven » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:00 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…

> But will it?

My prediction is no, because productivity gains must benefit the lower classes to see a multiplier in the economy.

For example, ATMs being automated did cause a negative drop in teller jobs, but fast money any time does increase the velocity of money in the economy. It decreases savings rate and encourages spending among the class of people whose money imparts the highest multiplier.

AI does not. All the spending on AI goes to a very small minority, who have a high savings rate. Junior employees that would have productively joined the labor force at good wages, must now compete to join the labor force at lower wages, depressing their purchasing power and reducing the flow of money.

Look at all the most used things for AI: cutting out menial decisions such as customer service. There are no "productivity" gains for the economy here. Each person in the US hired to do that job would spend their entire paycheck. Now instead, that money goes to a mega-corp and the savings is passed on to execs. The price of the service provided is not dropping (yet). Thus, no technology savings is occurring, either.

In my mind, the outcomes are:

* Lower quality services

* Higher savings rate

* K-shaped economy catering to the high earners

* Sticky prices

* Concentration of compute in AI companies

* Increased price of compute prevents new entrants from utilizing AI without paying rent-seekers, the AI companies

* Cycle continues all previous steps

We may reach a point where the only ones able to afford compute are AI companies and those that can pay AI companies. Where is the innovation then? It is a unique failure outcome I have yet to see anyone talk about, even though the supply and demand issues are present right now.

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

#187

Post by agoodusername63 » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:02 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #129

danielbln wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to bet that you are a millennial or older? We need our big screens for $IMPORTANT work (buying big things, money stuff, etc.). GenZ tends to be less bothered by it and just does it all on the tiny screen in their pocket. It's time to schedule a colonoscopy.

What if millennials are good at both and are choosing the right too for the job?

It's not seen as important enough for others.

Just like with a lot of things. Sure you could do a thing better, faster, more efficiently on a PC, but some people just don't care when 80% is good enough.

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

#188

Post by ahartmetz » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

ido wrote: post #99

everdrive wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need to understand how things are now. Here are few modern smartphone conventions that render banking on an old-fashioned PC totally obsolete: - Remembering that you need to do banking, but waiting to do it until you're at home in front of your computer. This is impossible now, and if I don't follow the impulse the moment it occurs, the impulse will forever escape into the ether. - Even the mere mention of n…

I literally can't find where the bookmarks even are on Edge (I didn't care enough to search online).

Autocompletion is my bookmarks collection for frequently visited websites.

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

#189

Post by SoftTalker » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:08 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #6

bdcravens wrote: post #2

That paired with an increasingly cashless society. (Which is also in large part to smart phones) Otherwise you'd still need more tellers to conduct transactions that exceed ATM limits.

As far as I can tell, it's entirely that. The things the author cites as how mobile banking supplanted going to the bank (paying for things with debit cards, getting your paycheck direct deposited, etc) have nothing to do with mobile banking. They are all just as you said: we live in an increasingly cashless society, the only reason to go to the branch is to deposit or withdraw money, so the need for tellers has gone…

Yes, exactly my reaction. Other than maybe to open an account in the first place, the only reason I ever went into to a bank even in the pre-internet, pre-smartphone era was to deal with cash.

Checks could be deposited in the deposit drop, or later at an ATM. My payroll went to direct deposit as soon as that was possible.

But to get cash, before ATMs, you went into the bank, unless you had check-cashing privilges somewhere else (supermarkets used to offer this). To deposit cash, you went into the bank so the teller could count it in front of you and agree on the amount. It was risker to deposit cash in a deposit drop or ATM.

The move to cashless transactions for almost everything, and the resultant rare need to carry cash, is IMO the main reason why we don't need very many bank tellers anymore.

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

#190

Post by pixelatedindex » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:09 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #147

pixelatedindex wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Long-term, they will need none. I believe that software will be made obsolete by AI. I think this is a bit hyperbolic. Someone still needs to review and test the code, and if the code is for embedded systems I find it unlikely. For SaaS platforms you’ll see a dramatic reduction, maybe like 80% but it’ll still have a handful of devs. Factories didn’t completely eliminate assembly line workers, you just need a far fe…

> Someone still needs to review and test the code, and if the code is for embedded systems I find it unlikely. I feel like you didn't understand my comment. I am predicting that there is no code to review. You simply ask the AI to do stuff and it does it. Today, for example, you can ask ChatGPT to play chess with you, and it will. You don't need a "chess program," all the rules are built in to the LLM. Same goes for…

> I feel like you didn't understand my comment. I am predicting that there is no code to review. You simply ask the AI to do stuff and it does it.

I didn’t, and thanks for clarifying for me.

This doesn’t pass the sniff test for me though - someone needs to train the models, which requires code. If AI can do everything for you, then what’s the differentiator as a business? Everything can be in chatGPT but that’s not the only business in existence. If something goes wrong, who is gonna debug it? Instead of API requests you would debug prompt requests maybe.

We already hate talking to a robot for waiting on calls, automated support agents, etc. I don’t think a paying customer would accept that - they want a direct line to a person.

I can buy the argument that the backend will be entirely AI and you won’t need to be managing instances of servers and databases but the front end will absolutely need to be coded. That will need some software engineering - we might get a role that is a weird blend of product + design + coding but that transformation is already happening.

Honestly the biggest change I see is that the chat interface will be on equal footing with the browser. You might have some app that can connect to a bunch of chat interfaces that is good at something, and specializations are going to matter even more.

It was a bit of a word vomit so thanks for coming to my TED Talk.