Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

Post by datpuz » Wed, Apr 30, 2025, 8:33 AM UTC

grandmczeb wrote: post #426

datpuz wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, if you're gaining a significant amount of productivity from LLMs in a technical field, it's because you were either very junior and lacked much of the basic knowledge required of your role, or you performed like you were.

IMO, if you haven’t been getting a significant productivity boost from LLMs in a technical field, it’s because you lack the basic brain plasticity to adapt to new tools, or feel so psychologically threatened by change that you act like you do.

Post by jakubmazanec » Wed, Apr 30, 2025, 9:39 AM UTC

decimalenough wrote: post #460

jakubmazanec wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awfully early? We have "useful" LLMs for almost three years. Where is the productivity increase? Also, your example is not very relevant. 1) Would you pay the professional if you couldn't find the answer yourself? 2) If search engines were still useful (I'm assuming you googled first), wouldn't they be able to find the official calculator too?

LLMs have come a long way in those 3 years. The early ones were absolute garbage compared to what we have today. 1) Yes. I had in fact already booked the appointment, but decided to try asking Gemini for shits and giggles. 2) I did google, but I didn't know an official calculator existed, and the search results presented me with a morass of random links that I couldn't make heads or tails of. Remember, I'm not a doma…

Post by thatjoeoverthr » Wed, Apr 30, 2025, 1:10 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #34

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #15

My primary worry since the start has been not that it would "replace workers", but that it can destroy value of entire sectors. Think of resume-sending. Once both sides are automated, the practice is actually superfluous. The concept of "posting" and "applying" to jobs has to go. So any infrastructure supporting it has to go. At no point did it successfully "do a job", but the injury to the signal to noise ratio wipe…

> This is what happened to Google Search This is completely untrue. Google Search still works, wonderfully. It works even better than other attempts at search by the same Google. For example, there are many videos that you will NEVER find on Youtube search that come up as the first results on Google Search. Same for maps: it's much easier to find businesses on Google Search than on maps. And it's even more true for n…

Post by ElevenLathe » Wed, Apr 30, 2025, 1:45 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #122

fhd2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably true as long as the workers generally cooperate. But there's also adversarial situations. Hiring would be one example: Companies use automated CV triaging tools that make it harder to get through to a human, and candidates auto generate CVs and cover letters and even auto apply to increase their chance to get to a human. Everybody would probably be better off if neither side attempted to automate. Yet…

Right, so it's like advertising when the market is already saturated (see coca cola vs pepsi advertising).

Post by freejazz » Wed, Apr 30, 2025, 3:08 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #386

mcmcmc wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of dieticians, investment advisors, and accountants they are usually licensed professionals who face consequences for misconduct. LLMs don’t have malpractice insurance

Good luck getting any of that to happen. All that does is raise the barrier for proof and consequence, because they've got accreditation and "licensing bodies" with their own opaque rules and processes. Accreditation makes it seem like these people are held to some amazing standard with harsh penalties if they don't comply, but really they just add layers of abstraction and places for incompetence, malice and power-t…