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

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

davidoks.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 607 posts

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

#271

Post by ptak_dev »

keeda wrote: post #153
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. T…

[flagged]

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

#272

Post by hn_acc1 »

jama211 wrote: post #194
onetimeusename wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I go back and forth on this. I relate it to software. I don't think AI can meaningfully write software autonomously. There are people who oversee it and prompt it and even then it might write things badly. So there needs to be a person in the loop. But that person should probably have very deep knowledge of the software especially for say low level coding. But then that person probably developed the knowledge by codi…

An AI’s ability to meaningfully write software autonomously has changed hugely even in the last 6 months. They might still require a human in the loop, but for how long?

And then you let them train themselves and no one notices when they "accidentally" remove the guardrail prompts from the next version. And another 10 years later, almost no one remembers how "The Guardian" learns new things or how to stop it from being evil.

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

#273

Post by CamperBob2 »

esseph wrote: post #182
hackyhacky wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

Because you'll be outcompeted by people who make the best of the nondeterministic system.

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

#274

Post by roncesvalles »

whatisthiseven wrote: post #186
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 t…

Your argument is (mildly) a variant of the broken window fallacy.

AI will bring about a de-sequestering of talent and resources from some sectors of the economy. It's very difficult to predict where these people and resources will go after that, and what effect that will have upon the world.

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

#276

Post by throwaway98797 »

stephbook wrote: post #267

I'm based in the rich Western world. Whenever I travel elsewhere, I'm amazed by the cheapness of labor. Humans would attend a gas station or fetch items in a store. Why? They're completely unneeded, I can do (and WANT to do) that myself. I always feel sad about these people, trapped in an economic system that forces them into useless labour when they could spend their time learning actually useful skills.

pretty degrading to call what they do useless

we all need to do something

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

#277

Post by babypuncher »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #269
babypuncher wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue we've even already seen this play out with productivity gains across the economy over the last 40 years. The American middle class has been gradually declining since the '80s. AI seems likely to accelerate that trend for the exact reasons you point out. A lot of people recognize this pattern even if they can't articulate it, and that's why they hate AI so much. To them, it doesn't matter if AI lives up…

Technological progress that hurts more people than it helps isn't progress, it's class warfare. We've never seen such a thing before, so I don't know how you can draw such sweeping conclusions about it.

The longer we ignore the collapse of the middle class, the angrier the bottom half of the economy will get and the more justified they will feel in enacting retribution. We absolutely have historical precedents for what happens here: The French Revolution, the Gilded Age, etc. People will only tolerate a declining standard of living for so long.

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

#278

Post by cogman10 »

stephbook wrote: post #267

I'm based in the rich Western world. Whenever I travel elsewhere, I'm amazed by the cheapness of labor. Humans would attend a gas station or fetch items in a store. Why? They're completely unneeded, I can do (and WANT to do) that myself. I always feel sad about these people, trapped in an economic system that forces them into useless labour when they could spend their time learning actually useful skills.

That labor cheapness is enabled by a cheapness of cost of living. Those things all tend to feed onto each other.

> I always feel sad about these people, trapped in an economic system that forces them into useless labour when they could spend their time learning actually useful skills.

It's useful labor. Yes you could do it yourself, but it gives them a job which they can ultimately use to afford food and where they live.

I mostly only feel bad for kids doing that sort of labor as it means they aren't getting an education. But for an adult? It speaks to something a bit right about their economic situation that they can stay a float by merely fetching items in a store.

I wish in the US that it was possible for someone to make a living doing doordash or instacart.

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

#279

Post by nine_k »

stephbook wrote: post #267

I'm based in the rich Western world. Whenever I travel elsewhere, I'm amazed by the cheapness of labor. Humans would attend a gas station or fetch items in a store. Why? They're completely unneeded, I can do (and WANT to do) that myself. I always feel sad about these people, trapped in an economic system that forces them into useless labour when they could spend their time learning actually useful skills.

> fetch items in a store. Why?

Because the presence of a human likely prevents shoplifting and / or vandalism. It must make economic sense for the gas station owner to employ a human, and I suppose this is the sense.

What actual useful skill do you think the gas station keeper could learn? Is their employment the thing that prevents them from learning these skills?

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

#280

Post by nine_k »

dehrmann wrote: post #28
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.

I know this is true, but for serious tasks, I need the screen real estate. I'm amazed at what some people can do from a phone, but also wonder if they're missing things, of if it's actually inefficient.

The efficiency of being able to do something at a moment's notice, on the go, anywhere and anytime may outweigh the conveniences of a larger screen.

BTW newer mobile phones offer "desktop mode" (the Samsung Dex, and what came to AOSP), so you can attach them to a TV.

Post reply on HN