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

"An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

goldmansachs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#61

Post by ndm000 »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #4

> Key to this view is our expectation that over the long run AI will create many new jobs even as it destroys existing ones. Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms. All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise. I get that previous automation waves have lead to new jobs i…

I have been struggling with the same thing. Reading the other comments make me agree with you even more. The best I can come up with is two fold. First that humans will have jobs verifying the verifiers. That is, for important initiatives where something must be right, agents can be doing most if not all of the work, but it will still be a human’s job to investigate what was done and sign off on it. The second is that humans will still have to make agreements with other humans for resources, capital, and the like. Somethings will be scarce, others will become scarce. And humans will always own scarce things that other humans will need to use - and they won’t be making deals with machines.

Another frame I’ve heard is that people will only trust humans when it comes to their kids, health, and money. That’s the simpler view.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#62

Post by carlosjobim »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #26
harimau777 wrote: post #13

The thing that I never hear discussed is how long it will take these "new jobs" to materialize and how much they will pay.

And what people do before the new jobs show up.

They use AI to change their jobs into new kind of jobs already. Some old jobs will disappear, some new jobs will appear, and most old jobs will stay. But if you think your job is among those threatened, you should have started adapting already at least 1-2 years ago.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#63

Post by skinfaxi »

ndm000 wrote: post #61
bayarearefugee wrote: post #4

> Key to this view is our expectation that over the long run AI will create many new jobs even as it destroys existing ones. Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms. All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise. I get that previous automation waves have lead to new jobs i…

I have been struggling with the same thing. Reading the other comments make me agree with you even more. The best I can come up with is two fold. First that humans will have jobs verifying the verifiers. That is, for important initiatives where something must be right, agents can be doing most if not all of the work, but it will still be a human’s job to investigate what was done and sign off on it. The second is tha…

> Another frame I’ve heard is that people will only trust humans when it comes to their kids, health, and money. That’s the simpler view.

I don't think even these are bastions. We trust machines to monitor our health (even in hospitals you are connected), our children (ever use a baby monitor), and our money through index funds. The path is incremental but we have started down it.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#64

Post by marcus_holmes »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #4

> Key to this view is our expectation that over the long run AI will create many new jobs even as it destroys existing ones. Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms. All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise. I get that previous automation waves have lead to new jobs i…

I'm seeing quite a few small businesses / solo ventures locally who are using AI productively in ways that they would not be able to afford humans doing the same job. So while this is replacing humans, it is not destroying jobs - those businesses would not be able to afford a human to do this job anyway.

It's a bit like Lean startup arising from Cloud computing - not having to provision your servers beforehand allowed a bunch of new small businesses (startups) to scale organically without needing vast amounts of capital locked up in hardware. Now AI is allowing a bunch of small businesses to operate with reduced expenses, enabling businesses that otherwise would not function, or would struggle.

A local IT/dev provider is seeing an increase in business serving this exact same market - small businesses vibe-coding an MVP then need help getting it stable and to the next level.

My guess is that this is the next Lean; small artisanal/local businesses that are enabled by the reduced costs from using AI in the business. And then the following wave of professional services that provide those functions at the next level as the artisanal businesses mature.

Just a guess, though, I think it's too early to be really confident about it.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#65

Post by marcus_holmes »

protocolture wrote: post #35
bayarearefugee wrote: post #4

> Key to this view is our expectation that over the long run AI will create many new jobs even as it destroys existing ones. Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms. All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise. I get that previous automation waves have lead to new jobs i…

>Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms. Still waiting for mesopotamian farmers to imagine what all these workers will be doing after "the plough" automates farming. >All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise. I would rather see someone describe why Jevons doesnt appl…

> The last time I felt like this, I was trying to talk other crypto speculators out of buying every hyped up shitcoin. AI at the moment feels like it is running very much on hype about future potential that has little to do with reality. I hate to use the term bubble, however.

Agree with this, but with nuance.

One of the differences with the AI tech is that we have a split between the technology and the businesses.

The current crop of large AI companies are totally in a bubble, and their economics make very little sense. That bubble is going to be extremely painful when it pops, and I hope we have the democratic fortitude to stop the losses being socialised through bailouts.

But the underlying tech is still good, and doing useful things. There are good open-source LLMs that are not that far behind the proprietary models, and can produce useful results.

Crypto had no use outside of the various currencies - there is not one successful use of blockchain tech that isn't a currency (or related), and the currency uses have been totally dominated by scammers and criminals. This is not the case with LLMs, which are useful tools, and will continue to be useful tools after the bubble bursts.

So yes, the hypers are hyping bullshit that is going to burst, and that is like the crypto situation. But after that bursts and they all go away (or hopefully broke), there will still be useful things being done with LLMs.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#66

Post by newsomix9xl »

Ai equals job loss has always been a lie except for very special niche jobs e.g. illustrator.

AI can't even do ASCII diagrams. AI is our friend, but maybe CEOs who want superbonuses and obscene wages and pay themselves in stock so they have to play stock price games: not our friend.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#67

Post by protocolture »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #65
protocolture wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms. Still waiting for mesopotamian farmers to imagine what all these workers will be doing after "the plough" automates farming. >All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise. I would rather see someone describe why Jevons doesnt appl…

> The last time I felt like this, I was trying to talk other crypto speculators out of buying every hyped up shitcoin. AI at the moment feels like it is running very much on hype about future potential that has little to do with reality. I hate to use the term bubble, however. Agree with this, but with nuance. One of the differences with the AI tech is that we have a split between the technology and the businesses. T…

Eh I see your nuance and meet with further nuance.

That was exactly the problem with Crypto.

You had the base technology that had demonstrable value due to novel security mechanisms. But getting a lot of this value to investors was always difficult.

And then you had technology that was useful for working with the base technology (NFT's, ZKSnarks, Smart Contracts) but was always going to be extremely difficult to extract value out of as a product. (Generally I see this category as a donation to open source programmers)

And then you had a whole bunch of grifters and conmen trying to sell A or B as ridiculous science fiction transformations of the world. Even the businesses that had solid use cases, werent 10x or 100x valued. And most of them had to pivot out of the space as legislation caught up.

The successful B projects just arent earth shattering. Which is proper imho.

>and the currency uses have been totally dominated by scammers and criminals.

Eh if this is true (which no longer seems to be the case outside of certain nations) keeping these mechanisms open and functional for my valid, legal use cases means that crime is having positive social outcomes.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#68

Post by arecsu »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #4

> Key to this view is our expectation that over the long run AI will create many new jobs even as it destroys existing ones. Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms. All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise. I get that previous automation waves have lead to new jobs i…

In the camp of software development, if AI really increases productivity when it comes to development, thus making it cheaper in terms of human resources, there will be opportunities when it comes to offering custom development, software and services to sectors in society where it was pretty much an obscure idea due to costs. Small business who would otherwise rely on convoluted, inefficient workflows from non-specialized software given their needs, will be able to pay a developer who can provide them with custom tools and services. This is basically new opportunities for a huge number of people in the industry in both sides: developers and people who need them. Small analogy but this can be extrapolated to so many areas. You get the idea.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#69

Post by marcus_holmes »

protocolture wrote: post #67
marcus_holmes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The last time I felt like this, I was trying to talk other crypto speculators out of buying every hyped up shitcoin. AI at the moment feels like it is running very much on hype about future potential that has little to do with reality. I hate to use the term bubble, however. Agree with this, but with nuance. One of the differences with the AI tech is that we have a split between the technology and the businesses. T…

Eh I see your nuance and meet with further nuance. That was exactly the problem with Crypto. You had the base technology that had demonstrable value due to novel security mechanisms. But getting a lot of this value to investors was always difficult. And then you had technology that was useful for working with the base technology (NFT's, ZKSnarks, Smart Contracts) but was always going to be extremely difficult to extr…

I don't see NFTs (for example) as a valid product, it was always a scam. Always based on speculative gambling with no actual value to anyone underpinning it.

And because of that, the whole "crime having a positive social outcome" doesn't work for me - doing crime to keep a scam going is not positive.

Re: "An AI Job Apocalypse?" – Goldman Sachs Report [pdf]

#70

Post by otterdude »

saimiam wrote: post #54
otterdude wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise. Welcome to economics! Bullshit and conjecture all the way down.

If it were all BS, how do you explain success stories like the Internet and the notion that countries on Dell’s supply chain won’t go to war with each other? Fundamentally, economics is the belief that humans have self-interests and act on them. Economics is obviously not 100% right - it’s not a physical science - but more often than not, you can see it in action. Economics is closer to weather science - we can make…

I think youre confusing a religious like belief in capitalism that posits that "greed is good" despite any contra indication with economics, which is a discipline where conjecture is taught as fact and empiricism if frowned upon.

I'm not even going to touch your examples. They are completely illogical? Dell? The Internet?? Thats one company, and a technology.

If you read the wealth of nations, the only real promise of capitalism is that competition lowers prices, and thats why its considered "good" not because it solves all problems. I believe that, the rest is ill-supported conjecture.

To point out the global stupidity that is economics, there is absolutely no consideration for the concept of a constraint. Constraints are a fundamental problem in optimization.

This article lays it out nicely. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/rethink-the-growth-imper...

Research this topic and you'll find economists arguing insistently that the conservation of mass or energy don't exist.

Post reply on HN