4 ms·

I have not heard or read anything about AI that could be construed as positive for an ordinary person. Step one is "lose your job with no possibility of finding

I have not heard or read anything about AI that could be construed as positive for an ordinary person. Step one is "lose your job with no possibility of finding another one, but still have to buy stuff to survive." That will also be the last step for a huge number of people. Is there a bull case for some hypothetical regular person with a desk job? I haven't seen one.

cjs_ac 11mo ago
The bull case is that when the venture capitalists stop subsidising LLM providers and expect them to turn a profit, the actual end-user costs exceeds the cost of employing a human. I don't know whether this is actually true, but it might happen.
- trevithick 11mo ago
  True, my question assumed AI "progress" and adoption follow the hype trajectory. Reality could be closer to the scenario you laid out. The bubble pops, some AI tools maybe improve things in some areas, societal disintegration gets kicked down the road a few years.
- Zigurd 11mo ago
  Either that, or the AI bubble bursts hard and those people lose their jobs too, and nobody has a prospect of getting their job back. That then causes the market to lose enough that it becomes impossible for PE firms to exit any of their investments.
- empath75 11mo ago
  Even it AI is better and more cost efficient at doing everything that humans do, there will still be work for humans to do. AI development will focus on stuff that ai is best and most efficient at. There will be many things that AI may be better at than humans but nevertheless would not be the best use of AI, and humans can still do that work.
  - drivebyhooting 11mo ago
    If AI is indeed better than humans in a particular task, why wouldn’t it be applied to that case? There is no fundamental limit to how widely AI can scale and be deployed - only capital restriction. Sure higher ROI applications will be chased gist, but in time even the least of tasks would be subsumed by AI.
infinitezest 11mo ago
This is something I've been waiting to hear as well. We hear about how jobs will be eliminated, and occasionally we hear about how that means there will be time for other things that we want to do, but it kind of seems like AI is already doing all of the things that we want to do. And then, of course, there's the question of how the rest of us are going to provide for ourselves if none of us have jobs. Those at the top already seem quite reticent to share with the rest of us. I can't imagine that's going to get better if we don't provide any value to them that a computer can't do for cheaper.
- FuriouslyAdrift 11mo ago
  There's always crime...
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 11mo ago
    The interesting thing about it is that the signs suggest that 'the rich' are prepping for such an outcome ( you will see occasional article here and there about bunkers being bought ). Naturally, if one was to suggest that maybe we could try working towards some sort of semblance of 'new new deal', they would be called some sort of crazy person, who is a communist and hates democracy ( as opposed to simply trying to save the system from imploding ).
    - achierius 11mo ago
      Then why bother? Why not go all the way, try to find a way to a new, better system, rather than gambling that these people who so totally hate you would one day become willing to compromise in order to save the current one (with benefits then most of all, not you)?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 11mo ago
        Because, in real life, power re-alignment of that magnitude tends to be.. chaotic. I like my life. I also like my kid to survive long enough to fend for itself. Both of these become a big gamble if we do not work within the existing system. I am saying this as a person who had a front seat to a something similar as a kid. It was relatively peaceful and it still managed to upend lives of millions ( because, at the end of the day, people don't really change ).
dontlaugh 11mo ago
Especially with this bleak described future. Why would I want to be one of the few simulated? I’d rather stay dead. If you think this may be the future, surely the only rational response is to do everything in your power to prevent it.
- trevithick 11mo ago
  Yes. I've always planned to stay dead forever after I die. AI is not changing that.
bpodgursky 11mo ago
Individual countries, or even multinational orgs like the EU, "opting out" doesn't work, is the critical problem. In a digital economy, you can't keep AI workers from crossing borders. You can pretend to make it illegal, but the Philippine "contractors" you hire will just be fake! Or more likely, your entire enterprise collapses against international rivals. Or your entire country turns into North Sentinelese islanders just surviving at the whim of hypertechnical industrialized neighbors. I'm all for international cooperation on how to preserve a place for humans, I truly am, but the "let's just not do it" is frustratingly naive and not an actual plan.
SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
20% of American workers (38% of those under 30) report that they use ChatGPT to help with their job (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/25/34-of-us-adults-have-used-chatgpt-about-double-the-share-in-2023/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/25/34-of-us-...). I suppose it's possible that none of that group are "ordinary", but my anecdotal experience has been that random nontechnical people have no problem using or finding value in generative AI.
- autoexec 11mo ago
  While only 20% of workers (a very very small number) use AI at their job fewer than half of those say it actually helps them work faster and fewer than 30% said it improved the quality of their work (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/02/25/u-s-workers-are-more-worried-than-hopeful-about-future-ai-use-in-the-workplace/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/02/25/u-s-wor...). I'm not seeing a lot of people "finding value" there
mordymoop 11mo ago
I used it to cure my 25-year-running chronic pain condition, I would call that a benefit.
ducttapecrown 11mo ago
The bull case is that everyone losing their jobs will accelerate and bring about the socialist revolution, giving us universal basic income and universal healthcare.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
tormeh 11mo ago
But think of the shareholders! No, but really. Humans have property rights because humans are useful to the dominant species on the planet. What happens when that stops being the case? Human investors will no longer be needed. So what are we really doing here?

cjs_ac 11mo ago

The bull case is that when the venture capitalists stop subsidising LLM providers and expect them to turn a profit, the actual end-user costs exceeds the cost of employing a human. I don't know whether this is actually true, but it might happen.

trevithick 11mo ago
True, my question assumed AI "progress" and adoption follow the hype trajectory. Reality could be closer to the scenario you laid out. The bubble pops, some AI tools maybe improve things in some areas, societal disintegration gets kicked down the road a few years.
Zigurd 11mo ago
Either that, or the AI bubble bursts hard and those people lose their jobs too, and nobody has a prospect of getting their job back. That then causes the market to lose enough that it becomes impossible for PE firms to exit any of their investments.
empath75 11mo ago
Even it AI is better and more cost efficient at doing everything that humans do, there will still be work for humans to do. AI development will focus on stuff that ai is best and most efficient at. There will be many things that AI may be better at than humans but nevertheless would not be the best use of AI, and humans can still do that work.
- drivebyhooting 11mo ago
  If AI is indeed better than humans in a particular task, why wouldn’t it be applied to that case? There is no fundamental limit to how widely AI can scale and be deployed - only capital restriction. Sure higher ROI applications will be chased gist, but in time even the least of tasks would be subsumed by AI.

infinitezest 11mo ago

This is something I've been waiting to hear as well. We hear about how jobs will be eliminated, and occasionally we hear about how that means there will be time for other things that we want to do, but it kind of seems like AI is already doing all of the things that we want to do. And then, of course, there's the question of how the rest of us are going to provide for ourselves if none of us have jobs. Those at the top already seem quite reticent to share with the rest of us. I can't imagine that's going to get better if we don't provide any value to them that a computer can't do for cheaper.

FuriouslyAdrift 11mo ago
There's always crime...
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 11mo ago
  The interesting thing about it is that the signs suggest that 'the rich' are prepping for such an outcome ( you will see occasional article here and there about bunkers being bought ). Naturally, if one was to suggest that maybe we could try working towards some sort of semblance of 'new new deal', they would be called some sort of crazy person, who is a communist and hates democracy ( as opposed to simply trying to save the system from imploding ).
  - achierius 11mo ago
    Then why bother? Why not go all the way, try to find a way to a new, better system, rather than gambling that these people who so totally hate you would one day become willing to compromise in order to save the current one (with benefits then most of all, not you)?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 11mo ago
      Because, in real life, power re-alignment of that magnitude tends to be.. chaotic. I like my life. I also like my kid to survive long enough to fend for itself. Both of these become a big gamble if we do not work within the existing system. I am saying this as a person who had a front seat to a something similar as a kid. It was relatively peaceful and it still managed to upend lives of millions ( because, at the end of the day, people don't really change ).

dontlaugh 11mo ago

Especially with this bleak described future. Why would I want to be one of the few simulated? I’d rather stay dead. If you think this may be the future, surely the only rational response is to do everything in your power to prevent it.

trevithick 11mo ago
Yes. I've always planned to stay dead forever after I die. AI is not changing that.

bpodgursky 11mo ago

Individual countries, or even multinational orgs like the EU, "opting out" doesn't work, is the critical problem. In a digital economy, you can't keep AI workers from crossing borders. You can pretend to make it illegal, but the Philippine "contractors" you hire will just be fake! Or more likely, your entire enterprise collapses against international rivals. Or your entire country turns into North Sentinelese islanders just surviving at the whim of hypertechnical industrialized neighbors. I'm all for international cooperation on how to preserve a place for humans, I truly am, but the "let's just not do it" is frustratingly naive and not an actual plan.

SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago

20% of American workers (38% of those under 30) report that they use ChatGPT to help with their job (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/25/34-of-us-adults-have-used-chatgpt-about-double-the-share-in-2023/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/25/34-of-us-...). I suppose it's possible that none of that group are "ordinary", but my anecdotal experience has been that random nontechnical people have no problem using or finding value in generative AI.

autoexec 11mo ago
While only 20% of workers (a very very small number) use AI at their job fewer than half of those say it actually helps them work faster and fewer than 30% said it improved the quality of their work (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/02/25/u-s-workers-are-more-worried-than-hopeful-about-future-ai-use-in-the-workplace/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/02/25/u-s-wor...). I'm not seeing a lot of people "finding value" there

mordymoop 11mo ago

I used it to cure my 25-year-running chronic pain condition, I would call that a benefit.

ducttapecrown 11mo ago

The bull case is that everyone losing their jobs will accelerate and bring about the socialist revolution, giving us universal basic income and universal healthcare.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

tormeh 11mo ago

But think of the shareholders! No, but really. Humans have property rights because humans are useful to the dominant species on the planet. What happens when that stops being the case? Human investors will no longer be needed. So what are we really doing here?