3 ms·

More than efficiency and costs, I think the real driver of AI adoption in big corp will be the reduction of all the baggage human beings bring. AI will never as

by spaceman_2020 3y ago

More than efficiency and costs, I think the real driver of AI adoption in big corp will be the reduction of all the baggage human beings bring. AI will never ask for sick days, will never walk in with a hangover, never be unproductive because their 3 month old baby kept them up all night... An AI coder will always be around, always be a "team player", always be chipper and friendly. That's management's wet dream.

moffkalast 3y ago
I don't think humans will stay competitive long enough for that to even matter, frankly. It's a no brainer to go for the far cheaper, smarter, and most importantly a few magnitudes faster worker. On the offshoot that we hit some sort of inteligence ceiling and don't get ASI tier models in the next few years then that will definitely do it though. Companies start going from paying lots of local workers to paying a few select corporations what's essentially a SAAS fee (some are already buying ChatGPT Plus for all employees and reducing headcount) which accumulates all the wealth that would've gone to the workers into the hands of those renting GPU servers. The middle class was in decline already, but this will surely eradicate it.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  Well anecdotally, there's been a massive drop in on-campus hiring in India this year. The largest recruiters - the big IT companies (Infosys, TCS, etc.) haven't apparenlty made any hires at all.
- astrange 3y ago
  None of this will happen because jobs are based on comparative advantage, and not absolute advantage, which means it doesn't matter if someone else would be better at your job than you are. Because that person (or AI) is doing the job they're best suited to, which is not yours. Other fun second-order effects include Jevon's paradox (which is why inventing ATMs caused more employment for bank tellers, not less.) I can be very confident about this because it's just about the strongest finding there is in economics. If this wasn't true, it'd be good for your career to stop other people from having children in case they take your job.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    >If this wasn't true, it'd be good for your career to stop other people from having children in case they take your job. Well, in times past, kings have been known to do this. But more generally, you raise an interesting point. I think your reasoning succeeds at dispelling the often-touted strong form of the claim ("AI can do my job better than I can therefore I will lose my job to AI") but doesn't go all the way to guaranteeing its opposite ("No possible developments in AI could result in my job being threatened"). Job threat level will just continue to depend on a complicated way on everyone's aptitude at every job.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Many things could result in your job being threatened. Since I think the kind of AI they're describing would increase employment, I'm equally willing to believe an opposite trend would decrease it. So that could be productivity decreases, rises in energy prices or interest rates, war, losing industries to other countries…
      - moffkalast 3y ago
        To quote CGP Grey "There isn’t a rule of economics that says better technology makes more, better jobs for horses. It sounds shockingly dumb to even say that out loud, but swap horses for humans and suddenly people think it sounds about right." I mean I don't know, maybe you're right and this will Jevons us towards even more demand for AI-assisted jobs but I think only to a point where it's still just AI complementing humans at being better and more efficient at their jobs (like LLMs are doing right now) and not outright replacing them. As per your example, bank tellers are still here because ATMs can only dispense money and change PINs, they can't do their job but only leave the more complex stuff to be handled by less overworked humans since they don't have to do the menial stuff. Make an ATM that does everything (e.g. online banking) and there's literally nothing a bank teller needs to exist for. Most online banks don't even have offices these days. For now classical brick and mortar banks remain, but for how long I'm not sure, probably only until the next crisis when they all fold by not being competitive since they have to pay for all those tellers and real estate rents. And as per Grey's example, cars did not increase demand for horses/humans, they increased demand for cars/AGI.
- realharo 3y ago
  >Companies start going from... The few companies that will still exist, that is - many of them won't, when their product becomes almost free to replace.

moffkalast 3y ago

I don't think humans will stay competitive long enough for that to even matter, frankly. It's a no brainer to go for the far cheaper, smarter, and most importantly a few magnitudes faster worker. On the offshoot that we hit some sort of inteligence ceiling and don't get ASI tier models in the next few years then that will definitely do it though. Companies start going from paying lots of local workers to paying a few select corporations what's essentially a SAAS fee (some are already buying ChatGPT Plus for all employees and reducing headcount) which accumulates all the wealth that would've gone to the workers into the hands of those renting GPU servers. The middle class was in decline already, but this will surely eradicate it.

spaceman_2020 3y ago
Well anecdotally, there's been a massive drop in on-campus hiring in India this year. The largest recruiters - the big IT companies (Infosys, TCS, etc.) haven't apparenlty made any hires at all.
astrange 3y ago
None of this will happen because jobs are based on comparative advantage, and not absolute advantage, which means it doesn't matter if someone else would be better at your job than you are. Because that person (or AI) is doing the job they're best suited to, which is not yours. Other fun second-order effects include Jevon's paradox (which is why inventing ATMs caused more employment for bank tellers, not less.) I can be very confident about this because it's just about the strongest finding there is in economics. If this wasn't true, it'd be good for your career to stop other people from having children in case they take your job.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  >If this wasn't true, it'd be good for your career to stop other people from having children in case they take your job. Well, in times past, kings have been known to do this. But more generally, you raise an interesting point. I think your reasoning succeeds at dispelling the often-touted strong form of the claim ("AI can do my job better than I can therefore I will lose my job to AI") but doesn't go all the way to guaranteeing its opposite ("No possible developments in AI could result in my job being threatened"). Job threat level will just continue to depend on a complicated way on everyone's aptitude at every job.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Many things could result in your job being threatened. Since I think the kind of AI they're describing would increase employment, I'm equally willing to believe an opposite trend would decrease it. So that could be productivity decreases, rises in energy prices or interest rates, war, losing industries to other countries…
    - moffkalast 3y ago
      To quote CGP Grey "There isn’t a rule of economics that says better technology makes more, better jobs for horses. It sounds shockingly dumb to even say that out loud, but swap horses for humans and suddenly people think it sounds about right." I mean I don't know, maybe you're right and this will Jevons us towards even more demand for AI-assisted jobs but I think only to a point where it's still just AI complementing humans at being better and more efficient at their jobs (like LLMs are doing right now) and not outright replacing them. As per your example, bank tellers are still here because ATMs can only dispense money and change PINs, they can't do their job but only leave the more complex stuff to be handled by less overworked humans since they don't have to do the menial stuff. Make an ATM that does everything (e.g. online banking) and there's literally nothing a bank teller needs to exist for. Most online banks don't even have offices these days. For now classical brick and mortar banks remain, but for how long I'm not sure, probably only until the next crisis when they all fold by not being competitive since they have to pay for all those tellers and real estate rents. And as per Grey's example, cars did not increase demand for horses/humans, they increased demand for cars/AGI.
realharo 3y ago
>Companies start going from... The few companies that will still exist, that is - many of them won't, when their product becomes almost free to replace.