Live data from Hacker News

I'm not worried about AI job loss

davidoks.blog

521–530 of 582 posts

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re describing task reallocation, but the bigger second-order effect is where the firm can now source the remaining human judgment. AI reduces the penalty for weak domain context. Once the work is packaged like that, the “thinking part” becomes far easier to offshore because: - Training time drops as you’re not teaching the whole craft, you’re teaching exception-handling around an AI-driven pipeline. - Quality bec…

[flagged]

What do you mean when you say “AI is reducing training overhead”?

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#522
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they’d keep the same number of people and increase total value output. Businesses tend to like the idea of growth more than cost cutting after all.

People don’t suddenly eat more food due to AI. That are a lot of industries with bounded total demand.

That’s true, however I’m truely glad 70% of the population isn’t working in food production anymore, those were the bad old times.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they’d keep the same number of people and increase total value output. Businesses tend to like the idea of growth more than cost cutting after all.

However good growth is finite unless you also believe in immigration and debt

Well all of that is false and tbh sounds a bit sus

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#524
post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. It’s like they think that the only thing automation is good for is cutting costs. You can keep the same staff size but increase output instead, creating more value.

"They" don't think the only thing automation is good for is cutting costs. Management thinks the only thing worth doing, at all, using any means, is cutting costs.

Well that’s clearly false, and obviously “they” refers to people that include management lol

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? You don’t only gain justification for automation by cutting costs. You can gain justification by increasing profits. You can keep the same amount of people but use them more efficiently and you create more total value. The fact you didn’t consider this worries me. Also the statement “show why automation hasn’t taken over” is truely hysterically wrong. Yeah, sure, no automation has taken over since the Industrial…

You can increase profits by cutting costs. It is remarkably easier to do in the short term. And even if you choose not to downsize you can drop/stagnate wages to gain from the fact everyone else is downsizing.

None of what you just said is anything I hadn’t considered, and also none of it negates anything I said.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> automation tools ... eliminates the boring part of the job, and then the job description shifts. But the job had better take fewer people, or the automation is not justified. There's also a tradeoff between automation flexibility and cost. If you need an LLM for each transaction, your costs will be much higher than if some simple CRUD server does it. Here's a nice example from a more physical business - sandwich ma…

The Nala bot reminded me of the guys at Felipe's in Cambridge MA. When they're building burritos during dinner rush, you'd swear to god that multiple different ingredients were following a ballistic trajectory toward the tortilla at any given time. If there was a salsa radar it would show multiple inbounds like the Russkies were finally nuking us. ETA: It didn't remind me of this because the robot is good at what it…

That’s one use case that is very hard to automate right now yes.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#528

[flagged]

> automation tools ... eliminates the boring part of the job, and then the job description shifts. But the job had better take fewer people, or the automation is not justified. There's also a tradeoff between automation flexibility and cost. If you need an LLM for each transaction, your costs will be much higher than if some simple CRUD server does it. Here's a nice example from a more physical business - sandwich ma…

Thank you. Having automation means process control, which means handling sources of variation for a defined standard/spec. The claims of all jobs being done by AI end up also assuming that we will end up with factories running automated assembly lines of thought.

I have been losing my mind looking at the output of LLMs and having to nail variability down.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#529
post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The firm simply assumes that if the top X was sufficient in the past, it is still sufficient now. From the perspective of modern management, there's really no reason to keep people if you can automate them away.

> The firm simply assumes that if the top X was sufficient in the past, it is still sufficient now. > From the perspective of modern management, there's really no reason to keep people if you can automate them away. These are examples of how bad management thinks, or at best, how management at dying companies think. Frankly, this take on “modern management” is absurd reductionist thinking. Just a few points about how…

> - Good employees are hard to find. You don’t let good people go just because you can. Retraining a good employee from a redundant role into a needed role is often cheaper than trying to hire a new person.

Your best employees at a given price though.

Part of firm behavior is to let go of their most expensive workers when they decide to tighten belts.

Unless your employee is unable to negotiate, lacking the information and leverage to be paid the market rate for their ability. Your best employees will be your more expensive, senior employees.

Everything is at a certain price. Firing your best employee when you can get the job done with cheaper, or you can make do with cheaper, is also a common and rational move.

While I agree it’s unlikely that there won’t be a labour doomsday scenario, I think ann under employment scenario is highly likely. Offshoring ended up decimating many cities and local economies, as factory foremen found new roles as burger flipper.

Nor do people retrain into new domains and roles easily. The more senior you are, the harder it is to recover into a commensurately well paying role.

AI promises to reduce the demand for the people in the prime age to earn money, in the few high paying roles that remain.

Not the apocalypse as people fear, but not that great either.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I ain't giving people something for nothing but I suspect you do, or would do that for your children or immediate family. I'm just some dude on the internet, so my opinions are worth exactly what you're paying for them (nothing). But when I try to understand this type of thinking, this is what I come up with: In the old days of scarce resources (vast majority of civilization), children were expected to 'repay' thei…

I think it's hard for certain people with certain backgrounds to understand.

What I see as someone who grew up in a very working class family surrounded by those on benefits:

I see the janitor who busts their ass day in and day out to provide for their families totally lost in these conversations. They are expected to take money out of their check - doing a very difficult, thankless, and not all that well paying job - to even today help pay for a whole lot of people who are incredibly more privileged. I know quite a number of people who have college degrees but experienced "failure to launch" who see themselves as too good to go work in a kitchen, as a janitor, or what have you - but are quite happy to accept various form of public benefits due to their part time cushy employment.

I cannot square that circle. Having someone work themselves to a bone with no real hopes of retirement, so you can have other people live a much easier life than they are.

If you ask those taking said benefits who are working part time in a arts field or whatever, they will of course state that they are not the problem and "rich people" should pay more in taxes so the janitor also doesn't have to work. But now who is cleaning toilets or taking out trash? At some point the work has to be done and you run out of rich people to tax for wealth redistribution.

Considering how widespread this "condition" seems to be in my human experience, I cannot see a widescale implementation of "to each of their abilities, to each their need" ever working out simply due to how selfish humans appear to be. I love the idea - and I have often dream of starting my own commune of sorts of well-curated individuals who all have roles to play, but I just can't see it working out either in reality or in scale. The only reason such a limited scale commune might work is that you could rule with an iron fist and vote people off the island who start to take advantage of others and no longer pull their own weight.

I am quite convinced that if you implemented UBI or other means for the average person to never work you'd simply get a whole lot of people doing effectively nothing, if not outright destructive (for society) things with their time.

Post reply on HN