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

The AI Layoff Trap

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#81

Post by Sharlin »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #40
Sharlin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infinite demand, maybe, but not at wages that most people are willing to accept. Of course, if there's literally no other work, then previously-middle-class people will take what's available and become homeless because the wage doesn't pay the bills (which are, in places, extremely inflated due to decades of jaw-droppingly bad housing and transport policies). Sounds like a highly desirable future.

That assumes the current high wages are here to stay. This seems unlikely if AI consumes most white collar jobs.

Um, I expressly said that high wages wouldn't stay? If the choices are either being jobless and homeless, or doing some menial cotton-harvesting job while still being homeless, we got a slight social problem. The GP said that there's a lot of demand for menial labor. That demand only exists if you don't have to actually pay for said labor. In other words, it's not demand at all.

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#82

Post by Incipient »

giacomoforte wrote: post #53
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.

You jest, but isn't this the logical conclusion? A sufficiently smart AGI has no need for humanity, at all.

But then, what need do we have for the AI?

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#83

Post by incomingpain »

The way I see OP: It's the Luddite Fallacy.

Textile workers worried about machinery saying it's going to result in collapse of the economy when they lose their job.

But every time there's a new technology that threatens some jobs because of an increase in efficiency but investment thus can be placed in other locations creating new jobs. different kinds of jobs.

It's not different this time. Each time the luddite movement is wrong. They are solely concerned with their own selfish concerns and the demands to stop the technological improvement will not be heeded.

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#84

Post by josefritzishere »

DApplying a Pigouvian tax to Ai companies might be difficult. None of them actually generate profit, nor have a model to ever do so. I think the huype machien needs to stop spinning before a solution like that would become practical.

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#85

Post by sheikhnbake »

Incipient wrote: post #82
giacomoforte wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You jest, but isn't this the logical conclusion? A sufficiently smart AGI has no need for humanity, at all.

But then, what need do we have for the AI?

At this rate, I'm convinced our future AI overlords will put humanity down much more humanely than we are/will

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#86

Post by librasteve »

giacomoforte wrote: post #53
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.

You jest, but isn't this the logical conclusion? A sufficiently smart AGI has no need for humanity, at all.

viz. Iain M. Banks culture, where the AI keep humans as pets

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#88

Post by fastforwardius »

efitz wrote: post #52

AI layoffs are very shortsighted IMO and should be viewed by investors as a sign of weakness in management or the business itself. If everyone is going to increase productivity by some factor k per employee, then kx is the new norm of overall productivity of x employees. If you lay off some percentage Y of your work force, then your expected gains will only be k(x(100-y)/100). In other words, you will not recognize t…

There are productivity gains to be had by reducing amount of communication and internal layers IMO.

I believe there are also diminishing returns on new features/products (in general case). So you won't really need that many people.

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#89

Post by joquarky »

bwhiting2356 wrote: post #67
debatem1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you work in one of these fields, right? Hydroponics, homebuilding, theatre construction, pothole repair?

I currently work as a software engineer, but I've worked in the past in restaurants (dishwasher/prep cook), doordashing, as a musician, as moving help. If AI automates software I'll just do something else.

Good luck with physical labor when you reach your 50s.

Re: The AI Layoff Trap

#90

Post by dinfinity »

incomingpain wrote: post #83

The way I see OP: It's the Luddite Fallacy. Textile workers worried about machinery saying it's going to result in collapse of the economy when they lose their job. But every time there's a new technology that threatens some jobs because of an increase in efficiency but investment thus can be placed in other locations creating new jobs. different kinds of jobs. It's not different this time. Each time the luddite move…

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

Your logic equates to "there will always be jobs for humans to do", which is naive. Remember that we're counting down in the number of things we do better than inorganic stuff. At some point our bodies (admittedly impressive when compared to other animals) will be surpassed in enough aspects that there isn't anything where we can provide enough value to live off.

Post reply on HN