4 ms·

These “AI will end all jobs” takes never seem to understand that a significant portion of the economy is driven by hype, celebrity, social pressures, and compet

These “AI will end all jobs” takes never seem to understand that a significant portion of the economy is driven by hype, celebrity, social pressures, and competition. People do not follow certain content creators because they are the most economically efficient and provide the “best” information, they follow them for largely human reasons. And as long as putting in more work leads to being more successful in this realm, jobs will continue to exist. Ergo I think the large shift will not be from jobs to no-jobs, but from jobs to entertainment-based jobs. In a world where everyone’s basic needs are met, the result is an attention-driven economy, not no economy.

djmips 2y ago
>attention-driven economy. yuk
vsnf 2y ago
Also, it's hard for proponents, often those in AI companies, to avoid coming off as either buying into their own hype, or otherwise just pushing the marketing for their product. The AI person is so convinced that AI will be so good that it might end work as we know it? Maybe, but it's also good for pushing the bull case for his company.
georgemcbay 2y ago
There are an awful lot of currently employed people who are neither remotely entertaining nor creative-minded enough to fill a more behind-the-scenes role for someone who is (assuming jobs like that even exist in this hypothetical near-future massive employment shift).
- portaouflop 2y ago
  IMO this market is already beyond saturated. I am easily able to spend 24/7 consuming content that I like - and I have very specific niche tastes, but even there enough content exists basically until the end of time. I could see this work if we develop even more exotic and creative tastes, creating even more hyper-specific niches and tiny communities around them.
jonahbenton 2y ago
The thing I laugh about is the ignorance of these pieces of the first reason people organized and built the bases of law and economies- to control what we now call real estate. RE is the basis and reasons for nation states, militaries, assets and the whole financial system- from which this person expects there to issue UBI. Jobs only exist when that whole system is stable. There is and always will be better and worse property around this unique globe. This will be exacerbated by climate challenges. An AI enhanced country will simply take control of desirable property of another weaker state, with predictable outcomes for the humans involved. The assumption that "we" will just get past that transition is a rich one, that is, one only a rich person can make.
ben_w 2y ago
> People do not follow certain content creators because they are the most economically efficient and provide the “best” information, they follow them for largely human reasons. You recon? I think most of this today is algorithmic, while for most of the 1900s it was effectively a lottery. > Ergo I think the large shift will not be from jobs to no-jobs, but from jobs to entertainment-based jobs. In a world where everyone’s basic needs are met, the result is an attention-driven economy, not no economy. Peacocking will still be thing[0], but I don't expect it to go the way you describe. Even with your assumption, we cannot all be creators. At best we can signal to each other how "refined" we are, that we "have good taste", but we'd already passed from the age of writing poems or playing instruments as a primary way to woo others to one of sharing mix-tapes before I was born (and from mixtapes to playlists now). Instead, I think we may have a world where the super-rich pay for humans to be valets to show they can afford it, where those humans themselves are "forced to get by" with robots who do a better job of it, in much the same way and for much the same reason that a $20 Casio F-91W keeps better time than a $20k Rolex or a $200k Omega (and of course, your phone or smartwatch is constantly syncing with someone else's atomic clock). [0] and indeed, I think this is the only correct argument for the claim "AI can't ever make art": to the extent that the point of art is to be an expensive signal (rather than merely "pretty"), then AI can only be that when it's unaffordable. I think the conflict between "is art the signal" or "is art the stuff" is a similar pattern to the arguments over "if a tree falling when nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" being secretly about "does 'sound' mean the vibrations in the air or is it your qualia caused by that?"
EGreg 2y ago
And you don’t seem to understand that AI influencers are already here, and are generating far more accounts and amassing far more followers than actual people. And also actual people (including onlyfans models) who used to fake the real connection by using men (like the Tates) to type it are now using AI and bots. The sea shift will come When people on both sides (not just the influencer side) PREFER multimodal AI to dumb texting. And then you don’t need the human model herself anymore because the AI model is far more versatile (in commercials too). Followers and engagement is a gameable metric, so expect capitalism to slowly favor AI in everything. If an AI model can ingest millions of publicly available videos and back up its points with the best B-roll and clips, it can also convince better than a team of 3 people. Even if its argument is bullshit. As you said, it’s not just about truth and results, it’s about follower counts and clout! So it’s not just about losing jobs, it’s also misinformation at scale, across many accounts. Enjoy the brave new world! I am talking about only what’s there NOW and possible with CURRENT technology.
- keiferski 2y ago
  I’m pretty unconvinced by the AI influencer idea. Most of them are just niche aggregator type of things, not accounts with real influence. By the time AI can replicate a streaming live video, devices and platforms will have already implemented real-identity features. Remember that the platforms themselves don’t benefit from AI content dominating everything and are pretty incentivized to ensure that content is from real people.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I don't buy any of that. Well, except for "most are just", which is plausible. > platforms will have already implemented real-identity features FB already has this, in theory, but that doesn't stop people scamming with it. Those policies didn't even stop people organising a genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co... > Remember that the platforms themselves don’t benefit from AI content dominating everything and are pretty incentivized to ensure that content is from real people. These platforms themselves are AI. Even when the posts are made by humans — and posts don't need to be "real time" nor do they need to be video — the feed is algorithmic to maximise your attention, and the choices of which advert to stick in front of your eyes are chosen algorithmically to maximise revenue… and even before the use of LLMs for copy and diffusion models for images, the ads themselves are AB tested by the businesses to see which have the greatest effect.
HumblyTossed 2y ago
The idea that with AI everyone’s basic needs will be met is rubbish. The current mindset is you don’t work you don’t deserve to eat or go see a doctor. That isn’t going to change anytime soon. 8 people have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the entire world. The machine that created that disparity won’t stop.
tivert 2y ago
> Ergo I think the large shift will not be from jobs to no-jobs, but from jobs to entertainment-based jobs. And that, in and of itself, is dystopian. Furthermore, there's far more inequality in "entertainment-based jobs" than other types of work. Everyone can't be an influencer, period, and it should be blindingly obvious to anyone who's lived in the world that not everyone can be an entertainer. > In a world where everyone’s basic needs are met, the result is an attention-driven economy, not no economy. "AI" will not bring us to "world where everyone’s basic needs are met." We lack the ideological foundations for that (and if we had them, everyone's basic needs would already be met. It's far more likely that we just get a bigger homeless problem, with people trying to scrape by living in sewers (like they already do! https://www.nzz.ch/english/the-misery-of-the-homeless-in-las-vegas-living-in-tunnels-ld.1708954 https://www.nzz.ch/english/the-misery-of-the-homeless-in-las...).

djmips 2y ago

>attention-driven economy. yuk

vsnf 2y ago

Also, it's hard for proponents, often those in AI companies, to avoid coming off as either buying into their own hype, or otherwise just pushing the marketing for their product. The AI person is so convinced that AI will be so good that it might end work as we know it? Maybe, but it's also good for pushing the bull case for his company.

georgemcbay 2y ago

There are an awful lot of currently employed people who are neither remotely entertaining nor creative-minded enough to fill a more behind-the-scenes role for someone who is (assuming jobs like that even exist in this hypothetical near-future massive employment shift).

portaouflop 2y ago
IMO this market is already beyond saturated. I am easily able to spend 24/7 consuming content that I like - and I have very specific niche tastes, but even there enough content exists basically until the end of time. I could see this work if we develop even more exotic and creative tastes, creating even more hyper-specific niches and tiny communities around them.

jonahbenton 2y ago

The thing I laugh about is the ignorance of these pieces of the first reason people organized and built the bases of law and economies- to control what we now call real estate. RE is the basis and reasons for nation states, militaries, assets and the whole financial system- from which this person expects there to issue UBI. Jobs only exist when that whole system is stable. There is and always will be better and worse property around this unique globe. This will be exacerbated by climate challenges. An AI enhanced country will simply take control of desirable property of another weaker state, with predictable outcomes for the humans involved. The assumption that "we" will just get past that transition is a rich one, that is, one only a rich person can make.

ben_w 2y ago

> People do not follow certain content creators because they are the most economically efficient and provide the “best” information, they follow them for largely human reasons. You recon? I think most of this today is algorithmic, while for most of the 1900s it was effectively a lottery. > Ergo I think the large shift will not be from jobs to no-jobs, but from jobs to entertainment-based jobs. In a world where everyone’s basic needs are met, the result is an attention-driven economy, not no economy. Peacocking will still be thing[0], but I don't expect it to go the way you describe. Even with your assumption, we cannot all be creators. At best we can signal to each other how "refined" we are, that we "have good taste", but we'd already passed from the age of writing poems or playing instruments as a primary way to woo others to one of sharing mix-tapes before I was born (and from mixtapes to playlists now). Instead, I think we may have a world where the super-rich pay for humans to be valets to show they can afford it, where those humans themselves are "forced to get by" with robots who do a better job of it, in much the same way and for much the same reason that a $20 Casio F-91W keeps better time than a $20k Rolex or a $200k Omega (and of course, your phone or smartwatch is constantly syncing with someone else's atomic clock). [0] and indeed, I think this is the only correct argument for the claim "AI can't ever make art": to the extent that the point of art is to be an expensive signal (rather than merely "pretty"), then AI can only be that when it's unaffordable. I think the conflict between "is art the signal" or "is art the stuff" is a similar pattern to the arguments over "if a tree falling when nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" being secretly about "does 'sound' mean the vibrations in the air or is it your qualia caused by that?"

EGreg 2y ago

And you don’t seem to understand that AI influencers are already here, and are generating far more accounts and amassing far more followers than actual people. And also actual people (including onlyfans models) who used to fake the real connection by using men (like the Tates) to type it are now using AI and bots. The sea shift will come When people on both sides (not just the influencer side) PREFER multimodal AI to dumb texting. And then you don’t need the human model herself anymore because the AI model is far more versatile (in commercials too). Followers and engagement is a gameable metric, so expect capitalism to slowly favor AI in everything. If an AI model can ingest millions of publicly available videos and back up its points with the best B-roll and clips, it can also convince better than a team of 3 people. Even if its argument is bullshit. As you said, it’s not just about truth and results, it’s about follower counts and clout! So it’s not just about losing jobs, it’s also misinformation at scale, across many accounts. Enjoy the brave new world! I am talking about only what’s there NOW and possible with CURRENT technology.

keiferski 2y ago
I’m pretty unconvinced by the AI influencer idea. Most of them are just niche aggregator type of things, not accounts with real influence. By the time AI can replicate a streaming live video, devices and platforms will have already implemented real-identity features. Remember that the platforms themselves don’t benefit from AI content dominating everything and are pretty incentivized to ensure that content is from real people.
- ben_w 2y ago
  I don't buy any of that. Well, except for "most are just", which is plausible. > platforms will have already implemented real-identity features FB already has this, in theory, but that doesn't stop people scamming with it. Those policies didn't even stop people organising a genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co... > Remember that the platforms themselves don’t benefit from AI content dominating everything and are pretty incentivized to ensure that content is from real people. These platforms themselves are AI. Even when the posts are made by humans — and posts don't need to be "real time" nor do they need to be video — the feed is algorithmic to maximise your attention, and the choices of which advert to stick in front of your eyes are chosen algorithmically to maximise revenue… and even before the use of LLMs for copy and diffusion models for images, the ads themselves are AB tested by the businesses to see which have the greatest effect.

HumblyTossed 2y ago

The idea that with AI everyone’s basic needs will be met is rubbish. The current mindset is you don’t work you don’t deserve to eat or go see a doctor. That isn’t going to change anytime soon. 8 people have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the entire world. The machine that created that disparity won’t stop.

tivert 2y ago

> Ergo I think the large shift will not be from jobs to no-jobs, but from jobs to entertainment-based jobs. And that, in and of itself, is dystopian. Furthermore, there's far more inequality in "entertainment-based jobs" than other types of work. Everyone can't be an influencer, period, and it should be blindingly obvious to anyone who's lived in the world that not everyone can be an entertainer. > In a world where everyone’s basic needs are met, the result is an attention-driven economy, not no economy. "AI" will not bring us to "world where everyone’s basic needs are met." We lack the ideological foundations for that (and if we had them, everyone's basic needs would already be met. It's far more likely that we just get a bigger homeless problem, with people trying to scrape by living in sewers (like they already do! https://www.nzz.ch/english/the-misery-of-the-homeless-in-las-vegas-living-in-tunnels-ld.1708954 https://www.nzz.ch/english/the-misery-of-the-homeless-in-las...).