The AI Layoff Trap

Post by xyzal » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 7:38 AM UTC

ithkuil wrote: post #41

xyzal wrote: post #13

I use AIs for coding with moderate success, but the more I work with them, the more I am convinced that "intelligence on tap" is a pipe dream, especially in domains where logical thinking in novel (ie not-in-dataset) contexts is required. Recently, I tasked it to study a new Czech building permit law in conjunction with some waste disposal regulations and the result was just tragic. The model (opus 4.6) just could no…

I wonder what percentage of the job space truly depends on the current edge we have over machines. I think it's reasonable to worry that way before machines are more reliable than the average human (let alone more reliable than a highly trained human) they can pose a significant disruption to the job market which will send shockwaves throughout society

Post by treetalker » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 8:16 AM UTC

leokennis wrote: post #54

drivebyhooting wrote: post #10

The trick is bypassing the human consumer as well. Companies satisfy (human) consumer needs as a byproduct of profit maximization. But human consumers are inefficient. They have to sleep, require medical care, etc. A purely machine economy would be far more efficient. Therefore in the limit we should eliminate reliance on human labor and consumption to build a more perfect and efficient world.

Idea! Maybe these now redundant humans can be turned into a kind of battery, so they serve as a source of energy for the machines? Perhaps it's then smart to make the humans have a brain/computer interface, to make then dream/think they are living in a normal society so they don't revolt.

Post by paulpauper » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 9:10 AM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #50

paulpauper wrote: post #6

If AI displaces human workers faster than the economy can reabsorb them, it risks eroding the very consumer demand firms depend on. That is a huge "if" though. I am not sure either that the latter falls from this. When the US transitioned away from assembly lines or agriculture dominated, it's not as if consumer spending consequently collapsed.

When did the US transition away from agriculture? When did the US transition away from assembly lines? I don’t think you have thought through either one of these and I don’t think they are comparable to what we expect to see for AI’s changes to the job market.

Post by barrkel » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 9:45 AM UTC

semiinfinitely wrote: post #8

neo-luddism dressed up in economic jargon. the authors suggest the only effective tool is to tax companies based on how much automation they achieve. Penalizing efficiency is a guaranteed recipe for stagnation and if we'd done this at any point in our past we would have not made it out of the dark ages

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 11:57 AM UTC

samrus wrote: post #25

drivebyhooting wrote: post #10

The trick is bypassing the human consumer as well. Companies satisfy (human) consumer needs as a byproduct of profit maximization. But human consumers are inefficient. They have to sleep, require medical care, etc. A purely machine economy would be far more efficient. Therefore in the limit we should eliminate reliance on human labor and consumption to build a more perfect and efficient world.

The humans consume to fulfill needs, how do those needs get fulfilled in a post human economy?