4 ms·
My gut says yes and no. Generally I think jobs pushing atoms are probably safer but there's been headway on this as well. Maybe not total elimination but furthe
by bronco21016 10mo ago
My gut says yes and no. Generally I think jobs pushing atoms are probably safer but there's been headway on this as well. Maybe not total elimination but further skill and human labor intensive reduction seems to be the trend. For example: a fast food restaurant maybe needed 5 employees before and with these advances needs 2. Things like automated order kiosks, automatic fry machines, or bots that restock pre-packed inventory. More labor intensive tasks though like plumbing, electrical, etc already pay somewhere around the 50% mark anyway because of a lack of skilled workers.
On the physical side of jobs, robotics definitely has heavy investment and I think it will continuously and slowly eat away at some of these physical tasks. Look at a modern warehouse for example.
- gruez 10mo ago>Things like automated order kiosks, automatic fry machines, or bots that restock pre-packed inventory. >On the physical side of jobs, robotics definitely has heavy investment and I think it will continuously and slowly eat away at some of these physical tasks. Look at a modern warehouse for example. None of those are "AI", though. At best it's "tech".
- bronco21016 10mo agoDon’t disagree. It’s no different than how the lay person doesn’t differentiate between LLMs (the new thing) and ML (the thing that’s been around awhile). It’s all just AI. Blame the marketing and tech leaders who throw “AI” in literally every marketing copy produced in the last 24 months.