4 ms·

> At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast amounts of employees out of work

> At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast amounts of employees out of work It's this part. Salaries and benefits are expensive. A computer program doesn't need a salary, retirement benefits, insurance, retirement, doesn't call in sick, doesn't take vacations, works 24/7, etc.

dbcjv7vhxj 2y ago
No it's not. It's because management is tone deaf and out of touch. They'll latch onto literally anything put in front of them as a way out of their inability to iterate and innovate on their products. Throwing "ai" into it is a simple addition, if it works, great, if it doesn't well the market just wasn't ready. But if they have to actually talk to their users and solve their real problems that's a really hard pill to swallow, extremely hard to solve correctly, and basically impossible to sell to shareholders because you likely have to explain that your last 50 ideas and the tech debt they created are the problem that needs to be excised.
- RajT88 2y ago
  Today it is AI. Yesterday it was Blockchain. Tomorrow it will be Agentic AI Blockchains. I know what you are thinking: robots are coming for our jobs after that. Don't worry! Those AI robots will run on the Cloud.
  - SturgeonsLaw 2y ago
    But that's where my job is!
  - csixty4 2y ago
    Can I control those robots using VR?
    - RajT88 2y ago
      No. The VR revolution will never come.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  It also looks really appealing to do tasks you have a very shallow and dismissive opinion of. For example, a lot of managers and c-level sorts seem to think it will replace developers. I think it would be great at summarizing and passing up reports and generating plausible looking meaningless text—so, it looks like it could do most management type jobs, to me. But, I must try to have a little bit of self awareness here: if we all think it can do the jobs we don’t understand and don’t think it can do the job we’ve got experience in, then maybe that just indicates that it isn’t really very good at anything yet.
wilg 2y ago
It's interesting how we can frame "potentially automating tasks" in the most sinister conceivable way. The same argument applies to essentially all technology, like a computer.
- autoexec 2y ago
  It's not really interesting, it's exactly what should be expected. We've seen how corporations act, and their history and our prior experiences go on to shape our perceptions and expectations accordingly.
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago
  > The same argument applies to essentially all technology, like a computer. Why yes, it does. Even setting aside that most AI hype: Yes, automation is in fact quite sinister if you do not go out of your way to deal with the downsides. Putting people out of a job is bad, actually. Yes. The industrial revolution was a great boon to humanity that drastically improved quality of living and wealth. It also created horrific torment nexuses like mechanical looms into which we sent small children to get maimed. And we absolutely could've had the former without the latter; Child labour laws handily proved it was possible, and should have been implemented far sooner.
  - DowsingSpoon 2y ago
    In addition, the Industrial Revolution led to societal upheaval which took more than a century to sort out, if you agree its ever been sorted out at all. So, if it is true we’re on the cusp of an AI Revolution, AGI, the Singularity, or anything like that, then there’s precedent to worry. It could destroy our lives and livelihoods on a timescale of decades, even if the whole world really would be over all improved in a century or two.
  - wilg 2y ago
    I'm not suggesting child labor laws are bad, I'm saying automation is good and not sinister. Automation inherently reduces labor, which can inherently lead to someone not needing to work a job that is now automated. That we want to protect people from suffering doesn't mean we should be suspicious of all new technology because we can imagine a way someone might lose a job.
Eisenstein 2y ago
Who do they think will buy their products if there are no employees anywhere? Businesses, even business facing ones, eventually rely on consumers at some point to buy things. What can be gained by putting everyone out of work?
- balder1991 2y ago
  I remain skeptical of the prediction that AI will simply “take over jobs”. If AI becomes advanced enough to perform tasks traditionally done by skilled professionals, it would instead democratize access to capabilities that are currently gatekept by wealth and resources (since right now you can’t have human employees, but you’d be able to have AI workers for cheap). In this scenario, individuals without substantial capital could leverage AI to achieve outcomes that today require the resources and influence of wealthy founders. It might do the opposite of what CEOs seem to think: challenge existing power structures and create a more level playing field.
  - glitchinc 2y ago
    Isn’t this position predicated on the assumption that individuals without substantial capital “own” an AI? When someone uses an AI they do not own, they are (maybe) receiving a benefit in exchange for improving that AI and associated intellectual property / competitive advantage of the person or entity that owns the AI—-and subsequently improving the final position of the AI’s owner. The better an AI becomes, the more valuable it becomes, and the more likely that the owner of the AI would want to either restrict access to the AI and extract additional value from users (e.g. via paid subscription model) or leverage the AI to develop new or improve existing revenue streams—-even if doing so is to the detriment of AI users. After all… a sufficiently-trained “AGI” AI could (in theory) be capable of outsmarting anyone that uses it, know more about its users than its users consciously know about themselves, and could act faster than any human. While I share in your hope, I think it is unfortunately far more likely that AIs will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots and will evolve into some of the most financially and intellectually oppressive technology ever used by humans (willingly or not).
gwervc 2y ago
It's not totally true: computer programs have downtime (even major cloud platforms), and need maintenance to keep being useful and operational.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
Human beings still need all those things whether they are employed or not though...
ForOldHack 2y ago
Humans have no intrinsic value except to convert food to carbon dioxide, most of which are completely useless to the Reich. AI is cheap to train ( only a few million dollars per model ), and cheap to run: Data centers will soon outstrip all other uses of electrical power, as for an AI calling in sick, no it needs full power 24/7. AI has no creativity, no initiative, no conscious, and absolutely zero ethics. "In a middle-ground scenario, by 2027 new AI servers sold that year alone could use between 85 to 134 terawatt hours (Twh) annually."

dbcjv7vhxj 2y ago

No it's not. It's because management is tone deaf and out of touch. They'll latch onto literally anything put in front of them as a way out of their inability to iterate and innovate on their products. Throwing "ai" into it is a simple addition, if it works, great, if it doesn't well the market just wasn't ready. But if they have to actually talk to their users and solve their real problems that's a really hard pill to swallow, extremely hard to solve correctly, and basically impossible to sell to shareholders because you likely have to explain that your last 50 ideas and the tech debt they created are the problem that needs to be excised.

RajT88 2y ago
Today it is AI. Yesterday it was Blockchain. Tomorrow it will be Agentic AI Blockchains. I know what you are thinking: robots are coming for our jobs after that. Don't worry! Those AI robots will run on the Cloud.
- SturgeonsLaw 2y ago
  But that's where my job is!
- csixty4 2y ago
  Can I control those robots using VR?
  - RajT88 2y ago
    No. The VR revolution will never come.
bee_rider 2y ago
It also looks really appealing to do tasks you have a very shallow and dismissive opinion of. For example, a lot of managers and c-level sorts seem to think it will replace developers. I think it would be great at summarizing and passing up reports and generating plausible looking meaningless text—so, it looks like it could do most management type jobs, to me. But, I must try to have a little bit of self awareness here: if we all think it can do the jobs we don’t understand and don’t think it can do the job we’ve got experience in, then maybe that just indicates that it isn’t really very good at anything yet.

wilg 2y ago

It's interesting how we can frame "potentially automating tasks" in the most sinister conceivable way. The same argument applies to essentially all technology, like a computer.

autoexec 2y ago
It's not really interesting, it's exactly what should be expected. We've seen how corporations act, and their history and our prior experiences go on to shape our perceptions and expectations accordingly.
ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> The same argument applies to essentially all technology, like a computer. Why yes, it does. Even setting aside that most AI hype: Yes, automation is in fact quite sinister if you do not go out of your way to deal with the downsides. Putting people out of a job is bad, actually. Yes. The industrial revolution was a great boon to humanity that drastically improved quality of living and wealth. It also created horrific torment nexuses like mechanical looms into which we sent small children to get maimed. And we absolutely could've had the former without the latter; Child labour laws handily proved it was possible, and should have been implemented far sooner.
- DowsingSpoon 2y ago
  In addition, the Industrial Revolution led to societal upheaval which took more than a century to sort out, if you agree its ever been sorted out at all. So, if it is true we’re on the cusp of an AI Revolution, AGI, the Singularity, or anything like that, then there’s precedent to worry. It could destroy our lives and livelihoods on a timescale of decades, even if the whole world really would be over all improved in a century or two.
- wilg 2y ago
  I'm not suggesting child labor laws are bad, I'm saying automation is good and not sinister. Automation inherently reduces labor, which can inherently lead to someone not needing to work a job that is now automated. That we want to protect people from suffering doesn't mean we should be suspicious of all new technology because we can imagine a way someone might lose a job.

Eisenstein 2y ago

Who do they think will buy their products if there are no employees anywhere? Businesses, even business facing ones, eventually rely on consumers at some point to buy things. What can be gained by putting everyone out of work?

balder1991 2y ago
I remain skeptical of the prediction that AI will simply “take over jobs”. If AI becomes advanced enough to perform tasks traditionally done by skilled professionals, it would instead democratize access to capabilities that are currently gatekept by wealth and resources (since right now you can’t have human employees, but you’d be able to have AI workers for cheap). In this scenario, individuals without substantial capital could leverage AI to achieve outcomes that today require the resources and influence of wealthy founders. It might do the opposite of what CEOs seem to think: challenge existing power structures and create a more level playing field.
- glitchinc 2y ago
  Isn’t this position predicated on the assumption that individuals without substantial capital “own” an AI? When someone uses an AI they do not own, they are (maybe) receiving a benefit in exchange for improving that AI and associated intellectual property / competitive advantage of the person or entity that owns the AI—-and subsequently improving the final position of the AI’s owner. The better an AI becomes, the more valuable it becomes, and the more likely that the owner of the AI would want to either restrict access to the AI and extract additional value from users (e.g. via paid subscription model) or leverage the AI to develop new or improve existing revenue streams—-even if doing so is to the detriment of AI users. After all… a sufficiently-trained “AGI” AI could (in theory) be capable of outsmarting anyone that uses it, know more about its users than its users consciously know about themselves, and could act faster than any human. While I share in your hope, I think it is unfortunately far more likely that AIs will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots and will evolve into some of the most financially and intellectually oppressive technology ever used by humans (willingly or not).

gwervc 2y ago

It's not totally true: computer programs have downtime (even major cloud platforms), and need maintenance to keep being useful and operational.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

Human beings still need all those things whether they are employed or not though...

ForOldHack 2y ago

Humans have no intrinsic value except to convert food to carbon dioxide, most of which are completely useless to the Reich. AI is cheap to train ( only a few million dollars per model ), and cheap to run: Data centers will soon outstrip all other uses of electrical power, as for an AI calling in sick, no it needs full power 24/7. AI has no creativity, no initiative, no conscious, and absolutely zero ethics. "In a middle-ground scenario, by 2027 new AI servers sold that year alone could use between 85 to 134 terawatt hours (Twh) annually."