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

Replacement.ai

replacement.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#311

Post by 1970-01-01 »

layer8 wrote: post #281
1970-01-01 wrote: post #262

I have still not seen, firsthand, someone lose their job to "AI". Parts and pieces, sure. But when the entire Venn diagram of 'this job' is laid out, it requires a cerebellum connection at some point. A vivid picture of someone's job being totally dissolved to AI is missing.

I know translators that have. Not because there’s nothing left to do for humans in quality translation, but because demand and compensation dropped so much that you can’t make a living from it anymore.

This is a great point. I would make the counterargument that app translators doing simple transactions of languageA to languageB for $X was possible a decade ago. AI certainly has made that low hanging fruit impossible to capitalize at speed and scale. Since AI has made the easiest part of translator's jobs much harder to monetize, translators can still offer value in lengthy transactions. Books that are to be translated for publishing, legal documents, and languages that are not understood by AI.

Re: Replacement.ai

#312

Post by theptip »

yujzgzc wrote: post #218
theptip wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI as defined these days is typically “can perform at competent human level on all knowledge work tasks” so somewhat tautologically it does threaten to substitute for all these jobs. It’s a good thing to keep in mind that plumbers are a thing, my personal take is if you automated all the knowledge work then physical/robot automation would swiftly follow for the blue-collar jobs: robots are software-limited right now…

I don't think that robots are software-limited in all domains... And even if AI became a superhuman software dev, it wouldn't drive the cost of software development to zero.

Humanoid robotics (ie replacing the majority of workers) is highly software-limited right now.

Here’s a napkin-sketch proof: for many decades we have had hardware that is capable of dextrously automating specific tasks (eg car manufacture) but the limitation is the control loop; you have to hire a specialist to write g-code or whatever, it’s difficult to adapt to hardware variance (slop, wear, etc) let alone adjust the task to new requirements.

If you look at the current “robot butler” hardware startups they are working on: 1) making hardware affordable, 2) inventing the required software.

Nothing in my post suggested costs go to zero. In the AGI scenario you assume software costs halve every N years, which means more software is written, and timelines for valuable projects get dramatically compressed.

Re: Replacement.ai

#313

Post by collinmanderson »

sincerely wrote: post #9

I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

> isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology?

I know, right? Machines have been gradually replacing humans for centuries. Will we actually get to the point where there are not enough jobs left? It doesn't seem like we're currently anywhere close to the point of not having any jobs available.

Has anyone thought about how the Federal Reserve plays a role with this? Automation puts downward pressure on inflation, because it doesn't cost as much to make stuff. The Federal Reserve will heavily incentivize job creation if inflation is low enough and there aren't enough jobs available, right?

Re: Replacement.ai

#314

Post by nadermx »

What I struggle with is how I'm writing this on a phone, in the back seat of an uber, en route to breakfast. Not even a king could have this level of comfort. While reading the library of alexandria. All I need is desire or will power to do anything, and direct an AI to do it for free. Yet, the future looks bleak.

Re: Replacement.ai

#315

Post by Ray20 »

newsclues wrote: post #225
Ray20 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large. The benefits to society will be larger. Just think about it: when you replace a dirty dangerous jobs, the workers simply have nowhere to go, and they begin to generate losses for society in one form or another. Because initially, they took this dirty, dangerous jobs because they had no choice. But when you firing educated workers en mass, society not only receives…

I don’t think you are considering the negative consequences. When you fire massive amounts of educated works to replace them with AI you make a mess of the economy and all those workers are in a worse situation. Farming got more productive and farmers became factory workers, and then factory workers became office workers. The people replaced by AI don’t have a similar path.

> make a mess of the economy

You're not taking something into account. The economy is becoming stronger, more productive, and more efficient because of this. The brain drain from all other fields to the few highest-paying ones is decreasing.

> The people replaced by AI don’t have a similar path.

They have a better path: get a real job that will bring real benefit to society. Stop being parasites and start doing productive work. Yes, goods and services don't fall from the sky, and to create them, you have to get your hands dirty.

Re: Replacement.ai

#316

Post by bamboozled »

theptip wrote: post #76
gnfargbl wrote: post #27

The hypothesized superintelligent AI will be essentially immortal. If it destroys us, it will be entirely alone in the known Universe, forever. That thought should terrify it enough to keep us around... even if only in the sense that I keep cats.

This premise is a bit silly. If the machine god gets bored it can just create new life in its own image.

How do you know that’s not what we are ?

It all gets quite religious / physical philosophical very quickly. Almost like we’re creating a new techno religion by “realizing god” through machines.

Re: Replacement.ai

#317

Post by latexr »

thekevan wrote: post #194
everdrive wrote: post #171

[flagged]

Your marriage is a decision between you and your spouse and is a mutual decision. A job is a decision that your boss(es) made and can be taken without your consent. You don't have the ownership of your job that you do of your marriage.

> can be taken without your consent.

Note that isn’t universally true, for either case. Without mutual agreement, in the EU you can’t fire someone just because, and in Japan you can’t divorce unless you have proof of a physical affair or something equally damming.

Re: Replacement.ai

#318

Post by theptip »

bamboozled wrote: post #316
theptip wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This premise is a bit silly. If the machine god gets bored it can just create new life in its own image.

How do you know that’s not what we are ? It all gets quite religious / physical philosophical very quickly. Almost like we’re creating a new techno religion by “realizing god” through machines.

We can’t know, but that scenario would support my point.

Re: Replacement.ai

#319

Post by xpe »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

> This is what government is for, and not to stifle innovation

We should compare how anti-government politicians talk versus how trained, educated neoclassical economists talk. The latter readily recognize that a valid function of government is to steer, shape, and yes, regulate markets to some degree. This is why we don’t have (for example) legal, open markets for murder.

Markets do not define human values; they are a coordination mechanism given a diverse set of values.

Re: Replacement.ai

#320

Post by marnett »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #170
darthoctopus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is the point of Luddism! the original Luddite movement was not ipso facto opposed to progress, but rather to the societal harm caused by society-scale economic obsolescence. the entire history of technology is also powerful business interests smearing this movement as being intrinsically anti-progress, rather than directly addressing these concerns…

Would we be better off today if the Luddites had prevailed? No? Well, what's different this time? Oh, wait, maybe they did prevail after all. I own my means of production, even though I'm by no means a powerful, filthy-rich capitalist or industrialist. So thanks, Ned -- I guess it all worked out for the best!

The Amish seem to be doing fine — and I don’t know if their way of life is under as much existential risk of upheaval and change as everyone else’s
Post reply on HN