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

US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 303 posts

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#251

Post by tstrimple »

cdrnsf wrote: post #141

Every interaction I have with AI where I previously would’ve interacted with a person is worse. Whether that’s something mundane like scheduling an appointment, use at a doctor’s office, chat support. I imagine it’s cheaper for the company deploying it, but it’s all bad. It lines up with companies being more concerned with investors than actual users and customers though.

Mine hasn't. I've been subjected to the lowest common denominator of employable humanity because of cost savings measures from companies. I'd far rather interact with an "LLM" powered support agent than a human who cannot even comprehend the language and is just following a scripted prompt. The LLM has more agency at this point than the human support personnel.

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#252

Post by Redoubts »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #214
bdangubic wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yea, historically in the United States we have been successfully solving all our problems by collecting more taxes. nothing more efficient than giving money to our Government

much of our current economic and social problems stem from efforts to collect _less_ takes from corporations and the wealthy. So yeah, collecting more taxes -- from those who can afford it -- would make a big difference.

Couldn't think of a more incorrect diagnosis if I tried. State government budgets have been ballooning for the last decade; but political leaders don't give a shit about tracking outcomes, only celebrating starting things and how much money they spend.

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#253

Post by dingaling »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #192
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is completely divorced from the facts given in the article. The main point is that certain types of jobs like customer service reps, secretaries and sales people are being disproportionately affected. If it was just general fears about the economy overall one would expect a more broad-based impact.

Wait, secretaries still exist? I would have figured in the era of word processors that such jobs would be few to nonexistent.

A good secretary is huge force-multiplier.

Seniors in my org still have them and they make things happen, partly through being able to use the senior's name to open doors and force action but mostly though their deep organisational knowledge.

All a boss has to say is "I need everyone involved in Project X in a meeting in London next week" and it's done, the boss just gets told when and where to get into a car.

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#254

Post by oliwarner »

dragontamer wrote: post #181
oliwarner wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of political solution is there? What intervention could roll this back?

Taxes. If these companies can afford $trillions, then the government can collect some dues that can fund retraining programs or whatever.

Taxes on what? Corps are famously good at burying profits under expenditure and mergers.

And what are you retraining to? We've long abandoned serious manufacturing and mining. Most people's job is the application of knowledge and communication and LLMs are coming for them all. From retail and call centres through to doctors and lawyers.

We can't all retrain as plumbers, waiters and surgeons.

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#255

Post by hodgesrm »

cdrnsf wrote: post #141

Every interaction I have with AI where I previously would’ve interacted with a person is worse. Whether that’s something mundane like scheduling an appointment, use at a doctor’s office, chat support. I imagine it’s cheaper for the company deploying it, but it’s all bad. It lines up with companies being more concerned with investors than actual users and customers though.

A lot of enshittification is driven by market consolidation. I really don't want my economic interactions to be with massive chains in a race to the bottom. The cure is to enable new competitors to offer alternatives. It starts with anti-trust but also includes reducing regulations and barriers to market entry. And maybe not so many billion-dollar, me-too AI investments and more focus on things like building delivering healthcare cheaply.

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#256

Post by danaris »

bdangubic wrote: post #241
kjellsbells wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make more money > stop spending so much fucking money I'm all in favor of this but part 1 has been made politically toxic for decades, and part 2 only seems to be taken seriously when the Other Guys are in power. For example, in the US I simply cant take the Republican party's fiscal opinions seriously when they bleat about the debt on the one hand and yet dont blink when asked to fund another foreign war.

republicans are much much bigger spenders than democrats by miles. they are “anti socialism” publicly but are 2nd largest socialist party on the planet (behind china).

"Socialism" isn't just "the government spending money".

In order to be socialism, it has to be spending money specifically to help the people, and broadly to reduce inequality.

Republicans do not do that, by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#257

Post by inglor_cz »

curioussavage wrote: post #199
nradov wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "shareholder greed"? They're not running a charity.

This a ridiculous view. It’s literally everywhere. Wanting to make money is one thing. Complete disregard for how you make it is another.

As usual, there is a level of disconnect given the complexity and anonymity of the financial system.

"Shareholders" are often people who invested in fonds which invested in fonds and they are thus several steps of separation from the final invested corporation. They only want their pensions to be stable, and de-facto own tiny slivers of hundreds of corporations, maybe not even exactly knowing which ones.

That detaches them mentally from those corporations, much like when you go to a restaurant and eat the food without being particularly bothered whether the cilantro in your soup, supplied by a large-scale supplier and imported from another country, didn't originate in conditions worse than typical for that developing country.

Modern civilization is so complex that if you wanted to check conditions of every vendor of everything you consume, you'd simply not have enough time and energy to do so.

I am typing this on a Dell laptop; should I be particularly interested in what happens in every Dell supplier which contributed to building of that laptop? Are you? I just bought it and started working on it; we may certainly call this "complete disregard".

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#258

Post by danaris »

nradov wrote: post #206
curioussavage wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This a ridiculous view. It’s literally everywhere. Wanting to make money is one thing. Complete disregard for how you make it is another.

They're not doing anything illegal.

If your only guide to ethics is the law, you have utterly failed at ethics.

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#259

Post by danaris »

blakesterz wrote: post #183
nradov wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have past BLS predictions proved accurate?

Planet Money just did an episode on this. The answer is, at least according to this, yes, pretty accurate. At least in the past https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5815308

But wasn't the BLS the organization that Trump fired and replaced all the leaders of recently, for putting out (accurate) reports that made him look bad?

Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI

#260

Post by Timon3 »

amazingamazing wrote: post #208
Timon3 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been reading this same comment non-stop for the last five years.

No surprise, it has been true for a while.

It actually makes me very skeptical of your thesis - broadly discussed facts don't usually need to be wrapped in "nobody wants to talk about this, but everyone knows it's true".
Post reply on HN