5 ms·

AI will be great for big businesses, alright for small businesses, and catastrophic for many employees. I imagine a gig economy where self employed workers need

AI will be great for big businesses, alright for small businesses, and catastrophic for many employees. I imagine a gig economy where self employed workers need to leverage ai to be effective, and it becoming exhausting to keep up. I hope I’m wrong

zamnos 3y ago
How much do you use Google Search throughout your day? Do you consider that exhausting as well? It seems only those that opt out of using ChatGPT or Copilot will be left to play catch-up and get exhausted.
- ihatepython 3y ago
  You have an optimistic view of ChatGPT. What I see happening is the movie 'Idiocracy' becoming a reality. Who am I kidding, Idiocracy is already a reality. Just look at the comments here on HN.
- dmreedy 3y ago
  Google search replaced, or dramatically reduced, an entire industry of skilled labor around research and library sciences. There's a great old Hepburn/Tracey movie, Desk Set, that is a playful treatment of this. The concern is always that there is a finite amount of work[0] to go around in any given iteration of our current style of society. New kinds of work do get invented from time to time. Automation eliminates kinds of work. The two are rarely in sync with eachother and the difference is usually measured in human privation and suffering. [0]work being defined as, "something you can trade for food and healthcare"
  - nlittlepoole 3y ago
    I agree with your premise but ultimately its the responsibility of governments to manage how society distributes what is produced. In the US at least, it seems most of the tension here comes from the fact that we've decided that if you are not doing "work", then you don't "deserve" food, shelter, or healthcare. Trying to stop automation always seems like a fools errand because there is simply too much incentive to automate.
    - dmreedy 3y ago
      Yes, I agree completely. Though I can imagine a counter argument from a technologist/futurist positing that the incentive to automate in part comes from that merciless system of survival. The modern Luddite, I think, doesn't necessarily "hate" looms, or their inventors. They just don't have any faith that those necessary compensations you describe will ever happen, or at least not quickly enough to save them. Perhaps the government is convinced by exactly that argument above. Or at very least too apathetic (or financially tangled) to fight it. We all act along the axes where we can affect something, effect something. Smashing looms is a fool's errand, but sometimes that's all the power you feel you have.
      - nlittlepoole 3y ago
        > The modern Luddite, I think, doesn't necessarily "hate" looms, or their inventors. They just don't have any faith that those necessary compensations you describe will ever happen, or at least not quickly enough to save them. Perhaps the government is convinced by exactly that argument above. Or at very least too apathetic (or financially tangled) to fight it. Agree > We all act along the axes where we can affect something, effect something. Smashing looms is a fool's errand, but sometimes that's all the power you feel you have. However I think what's fascinating about this is it requires believing you can't change your skill set to something else. Sometimes I don't think its as simple as feeling empowered, but also fear and anxiety about change.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  > How much do you use Google Search throughout your day? Do you consider that exhausting as well? Oh my god, yes. The way it makes everything possible means you never get to feel like you actually know WTF you're doing, because the edge is always expanding. Bring back the days of having a small shelf of 5-10 books that contained 99% of what you needed to know to do your programming/sysadmin/whatever job. Yes, it's absolutely exhausting. If you've never experienced or even seen what came before, it may not seem so just because you don't have a point of comparison.
  - dawatchusay 3y ago
    Are you saying that using Google to answer a question is more exhausting than parsing a book? That makes zero sense
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      > Are you saying that using Google to answer a question is more exhausting than parsing a book? That makes zero sense My point is that we couldn't possibly do our jobs now without Google, but that we used to be able to do it just by knowing the stuff in a few books really well and knowing where—in the books or in e.g. manpages—to find what we didn't know. A small shelf of books is way better than Google, if you can be reasonably certain that the answers you need are in there. Yes, this situation is far more exhausting.
      - dawatchusay 3y ago
        Yeah you couldn’t do you job without Google because it’s vastly superior to a shelf of 5 books
        yamtaddle 3y ago
        That very much depends on what you're doing. The existence of Google has brought about the expectation that we do our work in a way that requires Google.
mym1990 3y ago
I imagine it will be great for small and medium sized business as well. Generative AI is already making it easier to bootstrap yourself in side projects, and that impact will just get magnified as a project or company grows. Eventually an AI will be good enough to provide strategic guidance. Your second point is like saying: 'I imagine a gig economy where taxi drivers will need to leverage a car to be effective.' If someone offers you a hammer to build a cabin, why would you say no?
- kredd 3y ago
  Disclaimer: I am pretty pro AI. To your point about it being good for small and medium sized businesses — let’s assume it gets rid of a significant amount of workers. Who would be the consumers of these products, other small/medium sized businesses who also mostly have AI producing work? Obviously it’s a simplified question, but I’m curious how we’ll handle the removal of “useless workforce” when AI does an objectively better job.
  - vladd 3y ago
    Similarly to how we removed a lot of workforce from agriculture in the last century. The breadth and scope of services offered increased ten-fold and workers learned to add value in different ways in these new areas.
    - kredd 3y ago
      Fair, I guess, I have limited knowledge in this space, and it’s hard to imagine where and how these people would switch to.
      - SirMaster 3y ago
        That's how it's always been though. The previous generations could never imagine the kinds of jobs we have today. Now I am not saying that this is a guarantee to happen again, and that new jobs will be created and such. But I think anyone claiming to know that "this time it will be different" and that "we wont create new jobs that we can't imagine today" could be just as wrong about that idea too.
dehrmann 3y ago
> AI will be great for big businesses, alright for small businesses, and catastrophic for many employees. Who's going to buy from these businesses if people don't have jobs?
- tivert 3y ago
  > Who's going to buy from these businesses if people don't have jobs? Other businesses. If the "people don't have jobs" due to AI, consumer goods companies will go out of business, and society's resources will get redirected to non-consumer businesses and the passion projects of the ownership class.
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    > Other businesses. Outside Soviet Russia, there has to be an end consumer in there somewhere. There isn't such a thing as a truly "non-consumer business."
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - tivert 3y ago
      > Outside Soviet Russia, there has to be an end consumer in there somewhere. There isn't such a thing as a truly "non-consumer business." And I answered that. The ultimate consumers will be a group of wealthy people who control the productive resources using AI and use them to pursue their personal goals. There will be some B2B exchanges between those people, and perhaps a smallish cadre of employees who's labor is still useful to the wealthy, but most commerce as we know it will grind to a halt because the vast majority workers' labor won't be valuable to those who could pay them.
      - sprpstn 3y ago
        With a significant portion of mass consumption missing, wealth would start to erode. Stable inequality could grow up to a certain point, but not without adverse effects on investments. You can only sustain wealth without consumers in an absolutely totalitarian society, but even there it would lead to a catastrophic societal collapse sooner or later. I think this is a dead angle for a lot of AI experts. That sudden bump in efficiency might ruin large parts of the markets businesseses are built upon.

zamnos 3y ago

How much do you use Google Search throughout your day? Do you consider that exhausting as well? It seems only those that opt out of using ChatGPT or Copilot will be left to play catch-up and get exhausted.

ihatepython 3y ago
You have an optimistic view of ChatGPT. What I see happening is the movie 'Idiocracy' becoming a reality. Who am I kidding, Idiocracy is already a reality. Just look at the comments here on HN.
dmreedy 3y ago
Google search replaced, or dramatically reduced, an entire industry of skilled labor around research and library sciences. There's a great old Hepburn/Tracey movie, Desk Set, that is a playful treatment of this. The concern is always that there is a finite amount of work[0] to go around in any given iteration of our current style of society. New kinds of work do get invented from time to time. Automation eliminates kinds of work. The two are rarely in sync with eachother and the difference is usually measured in human privation and suffering. [0]work being defined as, "something you can trade for food and healthcare"
- nlittlepoole 3y ago
  I agree with your premise but ultimately its the responsibility of governments to manage how society distributes what is produced. In the US at least, it seems most of the tension here comes from the fact that we've decided that if you are not doing "work", then you don't "deserve" food, shelter, or healthcare. Trying to stop automation always seems like a fools errand because there is simply too much incentive to automate.
  - dmreedy 3y ago
    Yes, I agree completely. Though I can imagine a counter argument from a technologist/futurist positing that the incentive to automate in part comes from that merciless system of survival. The modern Luddite, I think, doesn't necessarily "hate" looms, or their inventors. They just don't have any faith that those necessary compensations you describe will ever happen, or at least not quickly enough to save them. Perhaps the government is convinced by exactly that argument above. Or at very least too apathetic (or financially tangled) to fight it. We all act along the axes where we can affect something, effect something. Smashing looms is a fool's errand, but sometimes that's all the power you feel you have.
    - nlittlepoole 3y ago
      > The modern Luddite, I think, doesn't necessarily "hate" looms, or their inventors. They just don't have any faith that those necessary compensations you describe will ever happen, or at least not quickly enough to save them. Perhaps the government is convinced by exactly that argument above. Or at very least too apathetic (or financially tangled) to fight it. Agree > We all act along the axes where we can affect something, effect something. Smashing looms is a fool's errand, but sometimes that's all the power you feel you have. However I think what's fascinating about this is it requires believing you can't change your skill set to something else. Sometimes I don't think its as simple as feeling empowered, but also fear and anxiety about change.
yamtaddle 3y ago
> How much do you use Google Search throughout your day? Do you consider that exhausting as well? Oh my god, yes. The way it makes everything possible means you never get to feel like you actually know WTF you're doing, because the edge is always expanding. Bring back the days of having a small shelf of 5-10 books that contained 99% of what you needed to know to do your programming/sysadmin/whatever job. Yes, it's absolutely exhausting. If you've never experienced or even seen what came before, it may not seem so just because you don't have a point of comparison.
- dawatchusay 3y ago
  Are you saying that using Google to answer a question is more exhausting than parsing a book? That makes zero sense
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    > Are you saying that using Google to answer a question is more exhausting than parsing a book? That makes zero sense My point is that we couldn't possibly do our jobs now without Google, but that we used to be able to do it just by knowing the stuff in a few books really well and knowing where—in the books or in e.g. manpages—to find what we didn't know. A small shelf of books is way better than Google, if you can be reasonably certain that the answers you need are in there. Yes, this situation is far more exhausting.
    - dawatchusay 3y ago
      Yeah you couldn’t do you job without Google because it’s vastly superior to a shelf of 5 books
      - yamtaddle 3y ago
        That very much depends on what you're doing. The existence of Google has brought about the expectation that we do our work in a way that requires Google.

mym1990 3y ago

I imagine it will be great for small and medium sized business as well. Generative AI is already making it easier to bootstrap yourself in side projects, and that impact will just get magnified as a project or company grows. Eventually an AI will be good enough to provide strategic guidance. Your second point is like saying: 'I imagine a gig economy where taxi drivers will need to leverage a car to be effective.' If someone offers you a hammer to build a cabin, why would you say no?

kredd 3y ago
Disclaimer: I am pretty pro AI. To your point about it being good for small and medium sized businesses — let’s assume it gets rid of a significant amount of workers. Who would be the consumers of these products, other small/medium sized businesses who also mostly have AI producing work? Obviously it’s a simplified question, but I’m curious how we’ll handle the removal of “useless workforce” when AI does an objectively better job.
- vladd 3y ago
  Similarly to how we removed a lot of workforce from agriculture in the last century. The breadth and scope of services offered increased ten-fold and workers learned to add value in different ways in these new areas.
  - kredd 3y ago
    Fair, I guess, I have limited knowledge in this space, and it’s hard to imagine where and how these people would switch to.
    - SirMaster 3y ago
      That's how it's always been though. The previous generations could never imagine the kinds of jobs we have today. Now I am not saying that this is a guarantee to happen again, and that new jobs will be created and such. But I think anyone claiming to know that "this time it will be different" and that "we wont create new jobs that we can't imagine today" could be just as wrong about that idea too.

dehrmann 3y ago

> AI will be great for big businesses, alright for small businesses, and catastrophic for many employees. Who's going to buy from these businesses if people don't have jobs?

tivert 3y ago
> Who's going to buy from these businesses if people don't have jobs? Other businesses. If the "people don't have jobs" due to AI, consumer goods companies will go out of business, and society's resources will get redirected to non-consumer businesses and the passion projects of the ownership class.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > Other businesses. Outside Soviet Russia, there has to be an end consumer in there somewhere. There isn't such a thing as a truly "non-consumer business."
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Outside Soviet Russia, there has to be an end consumer in there somewhere. There isn't such a thing as a truly "non-consumer business." And I answered that. The ultimate consumers will be a group of wealthy people who control the productive resources using AI and use them to pursue their personal goals. There will be some B2B exchanges between those people, and perhaps a smallish cadre of employees who's labor is still useful to the wealthy, but most commerce as we know it will grind to a halt because the vast majority workers' labor won't be valuable to those who could pay them.
    - sprpstn 3y ago
      With a significant portion of mass consumption missing, wealth would start to erode. Stable inequality could grow up to a certain point, but not without adverse effects on investments. You can only sustain wealth without consumers in an absolutely totalitarian society, but even there it would lead to a catastrophic societal collapse sooner or later. I think this is a dead angle for a lot of AI experts. That sudden bump in efficiency might ruin large parts of the markets businesseses are built upon.