AI will shrink workforces within five years, say company execs(cnn.com)
cnn.com
AI will shrink workforces within five years, say company execs
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/05/business/ai-job-losses/index.html
86 comments
I can see this. It will get rid of a lot of bs jobs. But, it will also create a lot of new jobs as well.
I wish we were in the Star Trek universe, so this was "AI will free humanity to pursue science and art without economic concerns" instead of "AI will make everyone poor and subjugate."
The author of the book series /How Stuff Works/ wrote a short story [0] about these two different paths.
0. https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
0. https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
You have not watched Star Trek Discovery.
STD doesn't really count as Star Trek though.
Everything after Roddenberry is fanfiction.
>95% of people used to work in agriculture. The machines took the AG jobs, and we're on net far better off.
>> >95% of people used to work in agriculture. The machines took the AG jobs, and we're on net far better off.
That kind of argument is getting really old. It's not a given that there is always something else for people to do when a job is automated, and when there is it's generally not something of equal or higher value (hint, they would have already been doing it).
That kind of argument is getting really old. It's not a given that there is always something else for people to do when a job is automated, and when there is it's generally not something of equal or higher value (hint, they would have already been doing it).
Like when people were working in private equity, marketing, law, finance, etc before the machines took AG jobs?
Those jobs didn't really exist yet, because everyone was too busy trying to get enough to eat.
~50% of the people on the planet live in pretty miserable conditions. We do not live in the age of abundance. Contrary to popular opinion, if we just split up Bill Gates's money, it would not be enough for everyone to have a nice life. On net, we will benefit massively from freeing up labor to do other things - beside mundane things that could be automated but currently cost too much to automate with current methods for it to make sense to automate them.
Those jobs didn't really exist yet, because everyone was too busy trying to get enough to eat.
~50% of the people on the planet live in pretty miserable conditions. We do not live in the age of abundance. Contrary to popular opinion, if we just split up Bill Gates's money, it would not be enough for everyone to have a nice life. On net, we will benefit massively from freeing up labor to do other things - beside mundane things that could be automated but currently cost too much to automate with current methods for it to make sense to automate them.
>Like when people were working in private equity, marketing, law, finance, etc before the machines took AG jobs?
We could do with fewer "marketing, law, finance, etc" jobs.
We could do with fewer "marketing, law, finance, etc" jobs.
> We could do with fewer "marketing, law, finance, etc" jobs
We can say this about almost any job category. For those perceived as useless, good riddance. For those seen as essential, they’re essential—wouldn’t it be nice if doctors could spend as much time as they wanted with every patient because a machine was doing the boring bits?
We can say this about almost any job category. For those perceived as useless, good riddance. For those seen as essential, they’re essential—wouldn’t it be nice if doctors could spend as much time as they wanted with every patient because a machine was doing the boring bits?
Or because we didn't need X profession, so those people could be doctors instead...
I'm not sure it's 50% of the planet that's living in miserable conditions - we really do live in an age of abundance. The United States supplies 25% of the global food supply - that's a single country.
Human Beings have been forced to survive most of our existence - I believe when we lift ourselves out of the necessity of work, that we finally actually be human for the first time.
We are supposed to exist above it all as we are the only life that we are aware that could ever do that.
Human Beings have been forced to survive most of our existence - I believe when we lift ourselves out of the necessity of work, that we finally actually be human for the first time.
We are supposed to exist above it all as we are the only life that we are aware that could ever do that.
Its almost like a law of nature that if there is spare labor capacity, capital will invent a use for it.
I'm sure hundreds of millions living in slums, with no jobs or prospects, but capable of plenty of spare labor, would be glad to hear about this new law of nature!
Poor people don’t just kick dirt all day they usually have jobs too you know
Poor people in Delhi, Lagos, Mexico City, Cairo, and all around the world where there are such slums, literally "kick dirt all day" - and beg, steal, live with what they can get their hands on, do some ocassional odd gig and try to survive on that, and so on.
We're not talking about working class poor people.
We're not talking about working class poor people.
[deleted]
There is always something to do that could improve the lot of our fellow humans, even if that just means hanging out with lonely people (of which there are many). The problem is finding anyone to pay someone to do these things, so that they can continue to be housed, clothed, fed, and entertained while they are.
Even short of abolishing capitalism (or at least UBI, or a decent social safety net) though, the most likely answer is that people will find work doing stuff that capital wants, and which AI can't yet do (sex work? meaningful art?), or that capital for some reason doesn't want AI to do (intelligence work? domestic servants?). I don't know what those professions will be, but it's likely some of them don't even exist yet.
Even short of abolishing capitalism (or at least UBI, or a decent social safety net) though, the most likely answer is that people will find work doing stuff that capital wants, and which AI can't yet do (sex work? meaningful art?), or that capital for some reason doesn't want AI to do (intelligence work? domestic servants?). I don't know what those professions will be, but it's likely some of them don't even exist yet.
Yes, because most of us have more brains than muscles.
But now the machines are after our brains too.
But now the machines are after our brains too.
I'm not sure about that "better" part.
We'd have more community, be more grounded, respect the land more, and have less bullshit jobs and products, if a much larger percentage of people still worked in agriculture.
We'd have more community, be more grounded, respect the land more, and have less bullshit jobs and products, if a much larger percentage of people still worked in agriculture.
Most people had to work as hard as they were able just to have enough to eat. When crops failed, the aristocrats forcibly took the food they needed (with the support of the legal system because they owned to land) with the result that some of the farmers starved.
This best it represents specific times and places, under specific regimes, not some constant fact of working the land.
Working the land had tons of downtime - even back at medieval and ancient times. In fact, even hunter gatherers have been observe by ethnographers to just need 2-3 hours to get the food for the day.
Working the land had tons of downtime - even back at medieval and ancient times. In fact, even hunter gatherers have been observe by ethnographers to just need 2-3 hours to get the food for the day.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Star Trek is a reflection of American society at the time.
Back in 1968 people were concerned about losing jobs to computers, just like they are today.
Back in 1968 people were concerned about losing jobs to computers, just like they are today.
MCCOY: Jim, we've all seen the advances of mechanisation. After all, Daystrom did design the computers that run this ship.
KIRK: Under human control.
MCCOY: We're all sorry for the other guy when he loses his job to a machine. When it comes to your job, that's different. And it always will be different.
KIRK: Am I afraid of losing command to a computer? Daystrom's right. I can do a lot of other things. Am I afraid of losing the prestige and the power that goes with being a starship captain? Is that why I'm fighting it? Am I that petty?
MCCOY: Jim, if you have the awareness to ask yourself that question, you don't need me to answer it for you. Why don't you ask James T. Kirk? He's a pretty honest guy.Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut's first novel in 1952, and ironically his least overtly wry and sardonic satirical one, really captured the listless drudgery of a fully-automated future without frontiers to explore.
> Back in 1968 people were concerned about losing jobs to computers, just like they are today.
If you consider the notorious productivity vs wage graph, it makes sense.
People didn't lose their jobs, but the productivity gains from computers and automation didn't go to them either.
If you consider the notorious productivity vs wage graph, it makes sense.
People didn't lose their jobs, but the productivity gains from computers and automation didn't go to them either.
There's still hope! Star Trek has a societal collapse and a world war 3 before we get to the communist utopia so it seems like we might be on track.
The rich will try to hide the defects of capitalism for as long as they can. And then we'll have a revolution.
Far more likely is the Orwell future:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever."
Star Trek requires a (nearly) post-scarcity world. In an AI driven future compute will be the new hot scarcity. It just so happens that those with the means to get the most compute are also the ones with the most wealth already.
I've heard somewhere online (can't find the source) something along the lines:
> I wish AI would do my laundry and dishes so I could do my art and writing.
> Instead, AI is doing my art and writing so I can do my laundry and dishes
> I wish AI would do my laundry and dishes so I could do my art and writing.
> Instead, AI is doing my art and writing so I can do my laundry and dishes
Computers are good at things we find hard. And are bad at things we find easy.
We can't multiply a million numbers together in a second which is hard for us. But doing the tasks for laundry is easy for us but hard for computers.
Which makes sense if you think about evolutionary pressures of what we are optimized to do well.
We can't multiply a million numbers together in a second which is hard for us. But doing the tasks for laundry is easy for us but hard for computers.
Which makes sense if you think about evolutionary pressures of what we are optimized to do well.
Today’s society can’t exist without mass exploitation. AI at least gives us a chance at a true utopia, where we don’t need a large fraction of the population working long hours in farms and factories doing physical labor for low wages.
It also makes it possible that a few can effectively rule over many without risking a revolution. But there’s a solid argument we are morally obligated to take that risk due to the state of today’s society.
Analogy: if a lot of people are held hostage in a building, do you attempt to breach the building, risking more casualties, or do you give up and let those people die? You do option c, evacuate the surroundings, form a plan to minimize risk, and then breach the building.
Translating into AI, it means we need to minimize the risk of a few taking control and then move forward. Obviously if we achieved AGI today, the risk of a few taking control is still very present
However, you also move fast, because waiting costs lives. If the risk of a few taking control isn’t going away, then we need to move forward. It’s only worth waiting if there’s a good chance that society will fundamentally change in a way that reduces this risk, but if we move forward now, AGI would precede that shift.
Oddly, I feel society is becoming a lot more liberal and anti-capitalist. Maybe it’s just the echo-chamber from the people I surround myself with and online places like HN. So the above could be true.
But lastly, we’re nowhere near AGI, and I’m certain the steps we need to take will cause massive societal shifts before AGI is reached, revealing more about how great the risk of a few taking control really is.
It also makes it possible that a few can effectively rule over many without risking a revolution. But there’s a solid argument we are morally obligated to take that risk due to the state of today’s society.
Analogy: if a lot of people are held hostage in a building, do you attempt to breach the building, risking more casualties, or do you give up and let those people die? You do option c, evacuate the surroundings, form a plan to minimize risk, and then breach the building.
Translating into AI, it means we need to minimize the risk of a few taking control and then move forward. Obviously if we achieved AGI today, the risk of a few taking control is still very present
However, you also move fast, because waiting costs lives. If the risk of a few taking control isn’t going away, then we need to move forward. It’s only worth waiting if there’s a good chance that society will fundamentally change in a way that reduces this risk, but if we move forward now, AGI would precede that shift.
Oddly, I feel society is becoming a lot more liberal and anti-capitalist. Maybe it’s just the echo-chamber from the people I surround myself with and online places like HN. So the above could be true.
But lastly, we’re nowhere near AGI, and I’m certain the steps we need to take will cause massive societal shifts before AGI is reached, revealing more about how great the risk of a few taking control really is.
Show, don't tell. I predict five years from now this article won't have aged well ;).
>AI will shrink workforces within five years, say company execs... The wide-ranging poll of 2,000 executives, conducted by Swiss staffing firm Adecco Group in collaboration with research firm Oxford Economics, showed that 41% of them expect to employ fewer people because of the technology.
Isn't that the opposite of the title? ~60% of execs then don't expect this? Also, the execs don't really clarify what "fewer people" means, could be .001% fewer people.
Isn't that the opposite of the title? ~60% of execs then don't expect this? Also, the execs don't really clarify what "fewer people" means, could be .001% fewer people.
It's tempting to read this like tea leaves predicting our future, but to be honest, I don't think these execs know any more than we do. I think they're just speculating. They have the same technology available that we do. Maybe @sama has given a select few a technology preview.
All of this to say: it's still too early to see how this shakes out. AGI changes the calculus completely, of course, but I'm not so sure various flavors of GPT alone will disrupt the job market.
All of this to say: it's still too early to see how this shakes out. AGI changes the calculus completely, of course, but I'm not so sure various flavors of GPT alone will disrupt the job market.
The difference with execs saying it is they're in a position to convince themselves they're right and act to make it happen. And it doesn't help that the immediate effect (lower payroll, higher stock prices) will "prove" them right, even as the enshittification of our entire economy accelerates.
Also that they control politics, so as they apply AI liberally, resulting in oceans of untold (and plenty of told) deaths and horrifying injustices, you can rest assured that they will have no liability, even if they need to have legislation passed to avoid it.
They're not predicting the future, they're announcing it. It's up to the population to get over themselves and deal with it.
They're not predicting the future, they're announcing it. It's up to the population to get over themselves and deal with it.
Execs create the future, they don’t predict it. If an exec with all their huge command of resources wants to remake job roles around AI and find ways to get more efficiency out of each person, then they have a pretty good chance of making that happen to some degree. True there may be technical limits, but this tech has a lot of present day potential and it’s very plausible some work will be automated.
> If an exec with all their huge command of resources wants to remake job roles around AI and find ways to get more efficiency out of each person, then they have a pretty good chance of making that happen to some degree
If it’s possible. Hertz buying every Tesla didn’t make the EV transition happen quicker.
If it’s possible. Hertz buying every Tesla didn’t make the EV transition happen quicker.
Executives control their employees (to whatever degree they can). Your Hertz example would be about controlling customers (which every executive fantasizes about but can’t actually do).
> Executives control their employees (to whatever degree they can)
Sure. But if they lay off their workforce and AI doesn't deliver, no amount of executive cajoling will make it do what it can't do. In the same way that an executive who refuses to deploy AI will be outcompeted by those who do (if it works), the one who overenthusiastically deploys it will be outcompeted by those who didn't.
Sure. But if they lay off their workforce and AI doesn't deliver, no amount of executive cajoling will make it do what it can't do. In the same way that an executive who refuses to deploy AI will be outcompeted by those who do (if it works), the one who overenthusiastically deploys it will be outcompeted by those who didn't.
The context of my comment is that JumpCrisscross is confusing the ability of executives to be able to control their employees vs being able to control their customers. The Hertz example is incorrect because it’s related to customers, when the AI discussion is about employees.
In making such a mistake, this subthread is no longer about AI vs employees, it’s about avoiding red herrings in the discussion.
In making such a mistake, this subthread is no longer about AI vs employees, it’s about avoiding red herrings in the discussion.
Wow, really, execs create future?
Sounds like some folks actually believe corporate mission statements!
Sure of course, in a totally apparent way.
In one sense, each of us individually participates in creating the future and occasionally some special person changes the world significantly or advances the state of the art all on their own, a brilliant scientist or artist and so on.
But most of the work creating the future is a team effort, not a solidarity one. You need many, many people all pulling in the same direction. And for all those people to coordinate, you need leaders to sell the vision, raise the money and pay the team. Sure there are other kinds of human organizing, but companies create a large share of innovation vs. governments and academia. Execs are the people most responsible for choosing what companies spend their resources on.
And for practical example, Mark Zuckerberg was for whatever reason, interested in VR existing as an everyday consumer experience. He scooped up a promising team working on a prototype, then directed untold billions at pulling VR out of the research lab and into millions of homes. It’s not obvious that VR was worth the investment and still isn’t. Minus the decisions of Mark Zuckerberg, would any VR headsets from any company exist for consumers? Unknown, but I believe no technology is inevitable. Our choices matter and the choices of very rich and powerful people matter all the more.
In one sense, each of us individually participates in creating the future and occasionally some special person changes the world significantly or advances the state of the art all on their own, a brilliant scientist or artist and so on.
But most of the work creating the future is a team effort, not a solidarity one. You need many, many people all pulling in the same direction. And for all those people to coordinate, you need leaders to sell the vision, raise the money and pay the team. Sure there are other kinds of human organizing, but companies create a large share of innovation vs. governments and academia. Execs are the people most responsible for choosing what companies spend their resources on.
And for practical example, Mark Zuckerberg was for whatever reason, interested in VR existing as an everyday consumer experience. He scooped up a promising team working on a prototype, then directed untold billions at pulling VR out of the research lab and into millions of homes. It’s not obvious that VR was worth the investment and still isn’t. Minus the decisions of Mark Zuckerberg, would any VR headsets from any company exist for consumers? Unknown, but I believe no technology is inevitable. Our choices matter and the choices of very rich and powerful people matter all the more.
They kind of do.
If you work at a company where the CTO says "your performance bonus will be partially based on what a code analysis tool like SonarQube says about your code", then your future and the future of other similar people in your organization will be created following that path.
They dictate which direction projects/milestones get prioritized + what fashion they get implemented in.
If you work at a company where the CTO says "your performance bonus will be partially based on what a code analysis tool like SonarQube says about your code", then your future and the future of other similar people in your organization will be created following that path.
They dictate which direction projects/milestones get prioritized + what fashion they get implemented in.
Execs are as subjugated by the times as the rest of us are, they surely pass part of that burden, but only part. They are still affected all the same.
It's great to have a scapegoat for all manner of issues as AI has been categorised as, though!
It's great to have a scapegoat for all manner of issues as AI has been categorised as, though!
I think the C-suite may have more exposure to the many roles in a company.
As an example the help desk function is likely to be transformed. Loan processors (the people reading your basic loan application details), farther out the underwriters approving a loan and at what rate. These functions are easy targets for AI to transform. It’s a highly repeatable role with lots of historical data. All that’s missing is some software guardrails placed around the models.
As an example the help desk function is likely to be transformed. Loan processors (the people reading your basic loan application details), farther out the underwriters approving a loan and at what rate. These functions are easy targets for AI to transform. It’s a highly repeatable role with lots of historical data. All that’s missing is some software guardrails placed around the models.
Contrary to the sibling comments, executives at publicly traded companies have very little reason to speak honestly about this plenty of reasons to bolster the position of AI in their company. The narrative pushes the value of their shares and earns them a raise for fairly little effort.
Don't know why you would ask these people instead of, say, researchers.
Speaking personally and a bit more cynically, these execs likely have _no_ clue what they are talking about and care about little more than money and status.
Don't know why you would ask these people instead of, say, researchers.
Speaking personally and a bit more cynically, these execs likely have _no_ clue what they are talking about and care about little more than money and status.
> I think they're just speculating.
Speculating with motivation (company profits) and "decision making" privileges means they will most likely attempt/be at the cutting edge of implementation (trying to cut whatever applicable jobs they can and replace with AI with good results)
Speculating with motivation (company profits) and "decision making" privileges means they will most likely attempt/be at the cutting edge of implementation (trying to cut whatever applicable jobs they can and replace with AI with good results)
Are these execs willing to pressure the relevant political parties for higher taxes to support UBI and extended unemployment benefits? Are they willing to shorten the work week to keep more employees? If not, are they prepared to deal with shrinking customer base?
That all being said, I'll believe that automation has finally reduced human labor when I see it.
That all being said, I'll believe that automation has finally reduced human labor when I see it.
There will be a lot more competition in five years when the cost of running a company is much lower.
[deleted]
> 41% of them expect to employ fewer people because of the technology
aka “41% of polled executives have read and believed marketing copy from AI companies”
aka “41% of polled executives have read and believed marketing copy from AI companies”
I think it's probable, even if AI turns out to be a giant nothing burger. Like all these companies that laid off tech support workers because they think AI is sufficient to replace them, and they didn't suffer any apparent consequences from the fact that every call now starts with 30 minutes of "We're sorry for the unprecedented level of calls". (Maybe they even benefited apart from reduced labour costs, since some of these calls end in costs like refunds or replacements)
I guess the headline "A minority of execs think AI will shrink workforces" wasn't as catchy.
All their data shows a minority of the people surveyed agreeing with this take.
All their data shows a minority of the people surveyed agreeing with this take.
Why does the tech circle share the "bros think x jobs will go due to AI" crap instead of "well researched report states x jobs lost to AI till date" stories?
Consider the following example:
Two competing companies have 100 employees, and make 50 million per year. They each have 50 "computer people" each making 100k per year. Every day AI gets a little better and these people get more and more effective, if they are empowered, know how to, and choose to use it.
Their roles are slightly changing every day, as perhaps they don't take as much time on certain types of tasks, and the productivity seems to be slightly increasing. This boost may or may not result in increased sales or profit, but it is real.
Now let's say there is a breakthrough in AI, and it is clear that based on the exact actions that these people are doing right now, they can all be replaced with AI. And also let's say that one company chooses to do this, but the other company decides to keep all their workers and asks them to use the AI to do their current job and also push it to do what they always wished they could do but never had the time or could figure out how.
I can't see a world where the company that fires all their people and uses AI to do what they have been doing always comes out ahead.
Simply, for all jobs like this to be a real threat, it has to be the case that AI would have to be so good that a group og highly skilled and specialized humans working WITH an AI, would be no better than the AI by itself. And I think this is almost a paradox or impossible situation. How are its tasks defined, requirements met, priorities made?
So many of the successful companies are successful in spite of huge doubters to their strategies like Apple and Tesla. It is unlikely to me that an AI would spit out a controversial vision when asked to develop a new company, or a strategy within an existing company.
Two competing companies have 100 employees, and make 50 million per year. They each have 50 "computer people" each making 100k per year. Every day AI gets a little better and these people get more and more effective, if they are empowered, know how to, and choose to use it.
Their roles are slightly changing every day, as perhaps they don't take as much time on certain types of tasks, and the productivity seems to be slightly increasing. This boost may or may not result in increased sales or profit, but it is real.
Now let's say there is a breakthrough in AI, and it is clear that based on the exact actions that these people are doing right now, they can all be replaced with AI. And also let's say that one company chooses to do this, but the other company decides to keep all their workers and asks them to use the AI to do their current job and also push it to do what they always wished they could do but never had the time or could figure out how.
I can't see a world where the company that fires all their people and uses AI to do what they have been doing always comes out ahead.
Simply, for all jobs like this to be a real threat, it has to be the case that AI would have to be so good that a group og highly skilled and specialized humans working WITH an AI, would be no better than the AI by itself. And I think this is almost a paradox or impossible situation. How are its tasks defined, requirements met, priorities made?
So many of the successful companies are successful in spite of huge doubters to their strategies like Apple and Tesla. It is unlikely to me that an AI would spit out a controversial vision when asked to develop a new company, or a strategy within an existing company.
FWIW that applies to enterprise where the venture is ever evolving. Once a machine can sort apples visually, it’s good enough, and the job of apple sorting isn’t really changing.
Just this week I tried to use AI for two tasks,
1. I asked ChatGPT to explain to me what NEM12 and NEM13 files are in the Australian energy market, what's the difference, how they're used and how they relate to energy meter types. It confidently gave me an answer that sounded very reasonable but upon further research was wrong in subtle but fundamental ways that made the whole exercise pointless.
2. I had an idea that you could hook up ChatGPT to the APIs exposed by most racing sims and have it be a dynamic "race engineer". I fed it with detailed information about the state of the race and asked it "in the style of a Formula 1 race engineer, craft a radio message for your driver given the following information. Only include the most important pieces of information. If you have strategic recommendations you may include them." All it did was rephrase the exact situation I had provided it, more verbosely.
This mirrors all of my experiences using LLMs to date (other than coding, which it performs slightly better at). I think these things are impressive in that they are doing things we've never seen computers do, but I have yet to find them do anything useful in a way that isn't fundamentally flawed.
I sometimes feel like I'm the only "AI" skeptic in the world, shouting into the void. This stuff just doesn't seem useful to me, and from what I have read about the technology there's no reason to believe this will dramatically change.
1. I asked ChatGPT to explain to me what NEM12 and NEM13 files are in the Australian energy market, what's the difference, how they're used and how they relate to energy meter types. It confidently gave me an answer that sounded very reasonable but upon further research was wrong in subtle but fundamental ways that made the whole exercise pointless.
2. I had an idea that you could hook up ChatGPT to the APIs exposed by most racing sims and have it be a dynamic "race engineer". I fed it with detailed information about the state of the race and asked it "in the style of a Formula 1 race engineer, craft a radio message for your driver given the following information. Only include the most important pieces of information. If you have strategic recommendations you may include them." All it did was rephrase the exact situation I had provided it, more verbosely.
This mirrors all of my experiences using LLMs to date (other than coding, which it performs slightly better at). I think these things are impressive in that they are doing things we've never seen computers do, but I have yet to find them do anything useful in a way that isn't fundamentally flawed.
I sometimes feel like I'm the only "AI" skeptic in the world, shouting into the void. This stuff just doesn't seem useful to me, and from what I have read about the technology there's no reason to believe this will dramatically change.
I would expect that both of these things are outside the main thrust of training data for these models. It seems unfair to ask it two very specific/niche tasks, then when it fails, then saying AI cannot do anything useful. I suspect if the tasks were aligned with its training data, we would see better outcomes.
I have been led to believe that the training data is "all of the internet". These things are not marketed as "AI for programmers" or "AI for email-writers" they are positioned as "AI".
> It seems unfair to ask it two very specific/niche tasks, then when it fails, then saying AI cannot do anything useful.
Read my post again. Those are just the things I tried yesterday. I have been giving ChatGPT an honest go since it was publicly released and other than some simple programming tasks and generating verbose text in various styles where factual errors don't matter I haven't found a use for it yet.
> It seems unfair to ask it two very specific/niche tasks, then when it fails, then saying AI cannot do anything useful.
Read my post again. Those are just the things I tried yesterday. I have been giving ChatGPT an honest go since it was publicly released and other than some simple programming tasks and generating verbose text in various styles where factual errors don't matter I haven't found a use for it yet.
It will be interesting to find out which one of us will be eating crow.
I totally feel it the same way! Amazing tech but not the HUMAN REPLACER it’s advertised
We are the apex of the AI hype cycle. I can't wait to come back here in 2 years and laugh at how everyone thought AI Clippy was going to take over the world.
Better yet, have your AI come back here and laugh on your behalf to save yourself some legwork.
You know I am someone who likes to push the envelope near the point of breaking just to observe what would happen, and I more or less feel the same about AI; that said I can’t help but wonder how ill prepared we all are when such this shift to near total automation eventually happens.
Companies gravitate towards cheap, and maximally efficient labor… currently the best way to achieve that if you’re a US business is to outsource it oversees, ergo India and customer support.
What will happen when people not only compete against each other for work, but also against machines? (That probably already happens to an extent, I am talking systemic) It’s not even remotely fair for an individual to have to compete in this kind of environment.
There several solutions that I can think of (By “we” I mean the US in this case).
1. We can turn into a welfare state and start paying everyone a fixed income. 2. We could augment ourselves with technology that enhances cognitive and physical abilities, leveling the playing field with AI. 3. We could put performance limits on enterprise computer hardware and put a ceiling on the emergent capabilities of AI and therefore reduce the barrier to fairly compete.
I personally I’m gonna open up a bakery in France and just hope you all manage ok.
Companies gravitate towards cheap, and maximally efficient labor… currently the best way to achieve that if you’re a US business is to outsource it oversees, ergo India and customer support.
What will happen when people not only compete against each other for work, but also against machines? (That probably already happens to an extent, I am talking systemic) It’s not even remotely fair for an individual to have to compete in this kind of environment.
There several solutions that I can think of (By “we” I mean the US in this case).
1. We can turn into a welfare state and start paying everyone a fixed income. 2. We could augment ourselves with technology that enhances cognitive and physical abilities, leveling the playing field with AI. 3. We could put performance limits on enterprise computer hardware and put a ceiling on the emergent capabilities of AI and therefore reduce the barrier to fairly compete.
I personally I’m gonna open up a bakery in France and just hope you all manage ok.
> I personally I’m gonna open up a bakery in France and just hope you all manage ok.
Sorry pal, smaller French (and EU) bakeries were decimated last year by soaring energy costs. Along with many real jobs.
Actually it seems rising energy prices are much more effective to shrink workforce than AI...
Sorry pal, smaller French (and EU) bakeries were decimated last year by soaring energy costs. Along with many real jobs.
Actually it seems rising energy prices are much more effective to shrink workforce than AI...
What will happen when people not only compete against each other for work, but also against machines?
The structure of capitalism allocates human workers away from things machines are better at, the market value of that product comes down, the owner of the machines builds wealth. Standard stuff.
The unsolved part is how to more gracefully transition human workers. We have usually done a rotten job at that, but if change really will continue to accelerate it will become a core competency for a nation.
The structure of capitalism allocates human workers away from things machines are better at, the market value of that product comes down, the owner of the machines builds wealth. Standard stuff.
The unsolved part is how to more gracefully transition human workers. We have usually done a rotten job at that, but if change really will continue to accelerate it will become a core competency for a nation.
Insanely relevant thread from 2018, the article is great and worth the read:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17350645
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17350645
1) You can either have a good welfare state or a lot of illegal immigrants. It is not possible to have both.
2) That’s Sci-Fi and not an action item.
3) That’s government overreach with all the nice unintended consequences they usually come with.
Conclusion: Fix the illegal immigration problem or good luck winning any election after the chicken have come home.
Conclusion: Fix the illegal immigration problem or good luck winning any election after the chicken have come home.
I'm skeptical that AI will automate away any truly valuable labor, but even assuming it will - what do you think is different this time compared to say, the Industrial Revolution?
That period rapid saw automation and reduction of cost of many, many peoples' livelihoods, but society is unarguably better for it. Eventually people were freed up to do higher-order work.
That period rapid saw automation and reduction of cost of many, many peoples' livelihoods, but society is unarguably better for it. Eventually people were freed up to do higher-order work.
#3 is impossible because you are talking about lot of value and lot of motivations. If we stop, as example, China is not going to stop, etc. This is like the arm race, no one will stop developing and whoever limit itself, will lose big at the end
#1 is tough one. Two issues, human need to be busy with something. While not needing to work seems great, but long term it makes us depressed, drug addict, and we lose our skill and become weaker and dumb. Second issue is whoever pays you, can tell you what to do or not. A huge wellfare system moves power from people to state, and can kill democracy. However,in limited version is generally better than starving people. #2 seems to be a decent option
So some version of #1 and #2?
So some version of #1 and #2?
> Companies gravitate towards cheap, and maximally efficient labor… currently the best way to achieve that if you’re a US business is to outsource it oversees, ergo India and customer support.
Who do restaurants still have waiters/waitresses if you can just order the food on the tablet at the table? Probably because some research shows the average person going out to eat is probably a certain age and wants the "human experience" and might "undersell" (not get upsold) if they just order themselves. Might get frustrated and order less.
Who do restaurants still have waiters/waitresses if you can just order the food on the tablet at the table? Probably because some research shows the average person going out to eat is probably a certain age and wants the "human experience" and might "undersell" (not get upsold) if they just order themselves. Might get frustrated and order less.
4. The difference between the "haves" vs the "have nots" will blow up exponentially, augmented by AI computing power used unilaterally. A new gilded age will form where the "have-nots" once again become domestic servants, like serfs serving their techno-feudal lords.
I personally believe that the faster we can automate all of our jobs the faster universal basic income will come out of the inevitable political pressure.
The guys we are celebrating today are also first in line to be used as political scapegoats tomorrow.
Keep your head down, keep innovating!
The guys we are celebrating today are also first in line to be used as political scapegoats tomorrow.
Keep your head down, keep innovating!
Every consulting company brings up AI as the end all solution now and we have to redirect the conversation back to what they were brought in to do. It's annoying.
Probably short lived though