3 ms·
In my book, anything that improves the quality of the output that a person can produce, or decreases the time they spend doing falls into the bucket of adding m
by hedora 2y ago
In my book, anything that improves the quality of the output that a person can produce, or decreases the time they spend doing falls into the bucket of adding middle-class jobs. (When things get cheaper, we end up using more of them -- See Jevon's Paradox.)
Of course, there are lots of companies trying to eliminate job positions because they think AI can do it. That won't work at all (and if it does, the result will no longer be competitive than companies that use AI to help their workers do better), so those companies will be ripe for disruption next year.
You're reading this comment on HN, so you can probably figure out the next chapter of this story on your own.
- falcor84 2y ago>Of course, there are lots of companies trying to eliminate job positions because they think AI can do it. That won't work at all (and if it does, the result will no longer be competitive than companies that use AI to help their workers do better), so those companies will be ripe for disruption next year. Could you please expand upon this? One of the visions I have of the mid-term future is that a company could be run entirely by a solo entrepreneur or a small executive team, with all the rest done by various AI agents. I would appreciate a good argument for why a company like that would necessarily be ripe for disruption.
- lowlevel 2y agoTo those of us that use and understand this technology, it's laughable to think that AI can replace an actual human, but I've seen enough people unable to detect obviously reckless AI recommendations floated to leadership that I'm afraid of the near future.
- falcor84 2y ago>laughable to think that AI can replace an actual human Any particular human competency that you believe that AI wouldn't attain in a decade?
- hedora 2y agoFiguring out how to use the AI and what to use the AI for.
- falcor84 2y agoWell, if that's the limitation, then it exactly fits the vision I mentioned earlier, of a company that could be run entirely by a solo entrepreneur or a small executive team.
- lowlevel 2y agoThis made me smile but I was thinking more along the lines of honour, conscientiousness, consideration, truth, knowing with conviction... common sense/etc. There are areas where this stuff is not appropriate but there is an unwillingness to hear that.
- quantified 2y agoJevon's Paradox, as I understand it, applies in some domains and not others. Recently discussed here in fact [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42906919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42906919] Companies disrupting each other isn't really the point. They can go on disrupting each other. What's missing are the uses that will grow employment somewhere to offset the employment that's trimmed by efficiency gains. Growing by equivalent or better wages and by the same number of people, that is. A few highly-comped individuals and many McJobs that are farther behind in real wages than they all are today is not a net plus.