5 ms·

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

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 ).
      - actionfromafar 11mo ago
        Yes, and, not only chaotic, power re-alignment almost always results in a reshuffling within the elites. When there truly is a new system, it will likely look like Cambodia did, i.e. pure shit.
      - bigbadfeline 11mo ago
        > Both of these become a big gamble if we do not work within the existing system. I guess, by "changing the system", achierius did mean going Marxist or another silliness of that sort, but generally speaking, the system can be changed by working within the system too. Observe how we are now moving towards a system that isn't based on the Constitution but on some weird mixture of libertarian dogma, excuses for oppression and a cult of personality. It could easily go into a full fledged dictatorship entirely from within, and why not, the top players don't hide their love for it. > 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 Weather you noticed or not, the system was changed from above, by people "within the system"... So you're OK to let that happen again but in a worse direction? > in real life, power re-alignment of that magnitude tends to be.. chaotic. Interestingly enough, you may want to reexamine your experience as a child to make sure there was some sort of "power re-alignment". Looking at the facts, I don't see it but I do see how chaos can be useful to those within the system.
        A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 11mo ago
        << you may want to reexamine your experience as a child to make sure there was some sort of "power re-alignment" I can understand every word in this sentence and yet I am having a difficult time parsing it. Is it that I did not provide vivid enough details? Is it that the experience is dismissed as that of a child? Is it merely a stepping stone to the next sentence and actually has no other meaning in your response? It is an internet forum. I did not give any major details though my posting history is readily available for digging. I guess what I am really saying is: I am confused by your answer. Care to elaborate?
- boilerupnc 11mo ago
  I suspect the early variants will fall into two camps: 1. Traditional garden variety human to human, computer to computer and computer to human crime stuff that happens today. 2. Human to computer (AI) crime, misdeeds and bullying. Stuff like: - Sabotage and poison your AI agent colleague to make it look bad, inefficient, ineffectual in small, but high volume ways. Delegate all risky, bad+worse choice decision making to AI and let the algo take the reputational damage. - Go beat up on automated bots, cars, drones, etc ... How should it feel to kick a robot dog? For a humorous read on automation bots and AI in a dystopian world, take a look at Quality Land [0]. Really enjoyed it. As a teaser, imagine having some drones suffering from a fear of heights, hence being deemed faulty and sentenced for destruction. Do faulty bots or AI have value in this world even if they don't deliver on their original intended use? [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36216607-qualityland https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36216607-qualityland
ErroneousBosh 11mo ago
> We hear about how jobs will be eliminated I've been hearing about how $latest_technology is going to eliminate jobs for 40 years. It hasn't happened yet. Which jobs, exactly, is AI going to eliminate? It's not useful for anything. It doesn't do anything useful. It's just mashing random patterns together to make something that approximates human-readable language.
- peterlk 11mo ago
  I am so, so, so tired of hearing this argument. At a minimum, AI provides efficiency gains. Skilled engineers can now produce more code. This puts downward pressure on jobs. We’re not going to eliminate every software engineering job, but the options are to build more software or to hire fewer engineers. I am not convinced that software has a growing market (it’s already everywhere), so that implies downward pressure. The same is true for customer support, photography, video production (ads), paralegal work, pharma, and basically any job that involves filing paperwork. Eliminating jobs has absolutely happened. How many jobs exist today for newspaper printing? Photograph development? Film development? Call switchboard operation? Technology absolutely eats jobs. There have been more jobs created over time, but the current economic situation makes large scale jobs adjustment work less well.
  - dingnuts 11mo ago
    [dead]
  - nradov 11mo ago
    I am so, so, so tired of hearing this argument. At a minimum, switching from assembly language to high-level programming languages provided efficiency gains. Skilled engineers were able to produce more code. This put upward pressure on jobs. The demand for new software is effectively infinite.
    - autoexec 11mo ago
      Unlike higher level programing languages AI doesn't actually make programmers more efficient (https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089 https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089). Many people who are great programmers and love programing aren't interested in having their role reduced to being QA where they just review the bad code AI designed and wrote all day long. In a hypothetical world where AI is actually decent enough to be any good at writing software, the demand for software being infinite won't save even one programmer's job because zero programmers will be needed to create any of it. Everyone who needs software will just ask AI to do it for them. Zero programing jobs needed ever again.
autoexec 11mo ago
> 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. That's been the promise of every technology. Computers were supposed to make us so productive that that we could all work less and spend time with our families or whatever. Instead productivity went through the roof freeing most people to do even more work for our masters who started demanding more from us even outside the office while real wages stagnated. AI isn't going to make our lives any more carefree than any other technology. It'll just make a small number of extremely wealthy people even richer. Thankfully, what passes for AI these days is pretty shitty at doing even basic tasks and so it'll be a while before we're all replaced. In the meantime, expect disruptions as companies experiment with letting staff go and replacing them with AI, get disappointed in the results, and hire people back at lower wages. Also expect a lot of companies you depend on to screw you over because their stupid AI did something it shouldn't have and suddenly it's your problem to deal with.

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 ).
    - actionfromafar 11mo ago
      Yes, and, not only chaotic, power re-alignment almost always results in a reshuffling within the elites. When there truly is a new system, it will likely look like Cambodia did, i.e. pure shit.
    - bigbadfeline 11mo ago
      > Both of these become a big gamble if we do not work within the existing system. I guess, by "changing the system", achierius did mean going Marxist or another silliness of that sort, but generally speaking, the system can be changed by working within the system too. Observe how we are now moving towards a system that isn't based on the Constitution but on some weird mixture of libertarian dogma, excuses for oppression and a cult of personality. It could easily go into a full fledged dictatorship entirely from within, and why not, the top players don't hide their love for it. > 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 Weather you noticed or not, the system was changed from above, by people "within the system"... So you're OK to let that happen again but in a worse direction? > in real life, power re-alignment of that magnitude tends to be.. chaotic. Interestingly enough, you may want to reexamine your experience as a child to make sure there was some sort of "power re-alignment". Looking at the facts, I don't see it but I do see how chaos can be useful to those within the system.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 11mo ago
        << you may want to reexamine your experience as a child to make sure there was some sort of "power re-alignment" I can understand every word in this sentence and yet I am having a difficult time parsing it. Is it that I did not provide vivid enough details? Is it that the experience is dismissed as that of a child? Is it merely a stepping stone to the next sentence and actually has no other meaning in your response? It is an internet forum. I did not give any major details though my posting history is readily available for digging. I guess what I am really saying is: I am confused by your answer. Care to elaborate?
boilerupnc 11mo ago
I suspect the early variants will fall into two camps: 1. Traditional garden variety human to human, computer to computer and computer to human crime stuff that happens today. 2. Human to computer (AI) crime, misdeeds and bullying. Stuff like: - Sabotage and poison your AI agent colleague to make it look bad, inefficient, ineffectual in small, but high volume ways. Delegate all risky, bad+worse choice decision making to AI and let the algo take the reputational damage. - Go beat up on automated bots, cars, drones, etc ... How should it feel to kick a robot dog? For a humorous read on automation bots and AI in a dystopian world, take a look at Quality Land [0]. Really enjoyed it. As a teaser, imagine having some drones suffering from a fear of heights, hence being deemed faulty and sentenced for destruction. Do faulty bots or AI have value in this world even if they don't deliver on their original intended use? [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36216607-qualityland https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36216607-qualityland

ErroneousBosh 11mo ago

> We hear about how jobs will be eliminated I've been hearing about how $latest_technology is going to eliminate jobs for 40 years. It hasn't happened yet. Which jobs, exactly, is AI going to eliminate? It's not useful for anything. It doesn't do anything useful. It's just mashing random patterns together to make something that approximates human-readable language.

peterlk 11mo ago
I am so, so, so tired of hearing this argument. At a minimum, AI provides efficiency gains. Skilled engineers can now produce more code. This puts downward pressure on jobs. We’re not going to eliminate every software engineering job, but the options are to build more software or to hire fewer engineers. I am not convinced that software has a growing market (it’s already everywhere), so that implies downward pressure. The same is true for customer support, photography, video production (ads), paralegal work, pharma, and basically any job that involves filing paperwork. Eliminating jobs has absolutely happened. How many jobs exist today for newspaper printing? Photograph development? Film development? Call switchboard operation? Technology absolutely eats jobs. There have been more jobs created over time, but the current economic situation makes large scale jobs adjustment work less well.
- dingnuts 11mo ago
  [dead]
- nradov 11mo ago
  I am so, so, so tired of hearing this argument. At a minimum, switching from assembly language to high-level programming languages provided efficiency gains. Skilled engineers were able to produce more code. This put upward pressure on jobs. The demand for new software is effectively infinite.
  - autoexec 11mo ago
    Unlike higher level programing languages AI doesn't actually make programmers more efficient (https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089 https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089). Many people who are great programmers and love programing aren't interested in having their role reduced to being QA where they just review the bad code AI designed and wrote all day long. In a hypothetical world where AI is actually decent enough to be any good at writing software, the demand for software being infinite won't save even one programmer's job because zero programmers will be needed to create any of it. Everyone who needs software will just ask AI to do it for them. Zero programing jobs needed ever again.

autoexec 11mo ago

> 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. That's been the promise of every technology. Computers were supposed to make us so productive that that we could all work less and spend time with our families or whatever. Instead productivity went through the roof freeing most people to do even more work for our masters who started demanding more from us even outside the office while real wages stagnated. AI isn't going to make our lives any more carefree than any other technology. It'll just make a small number of extremely wealthy people even richer. Thankfully, what passes for AI these days is pretty shitty at doing even basic tasks and so it'll be a while before we're all replaced. In the meantime, expect disruptions as companies experiment with letting staff go and replacing them with AI, get disappointed in the results, and hire people back at lower wages. Also expect a lot of companies you depend on to screw you over because their stupid AI did something it shouldn't have and suddenly it's your problem to deal with.