3 ms·

Because there is always work to do. It is true that demand will drop for those that don't take initiative and aren't sure what to do now that AI can do their re

by xvector 6mo ago

Because there is always work to do. It is true that demand will drop for those that don't take initiative and aren't sure what to do now that AI can do their repetitive tasks. However, demand will surge for those that can think critically about how to utilize AI to empower businesses. "Software engineer" as a profession is rapidly getting automated at my company, and yet our SWEs are delivering more value than ever before. The layer of abstraction has changed, that is all. > what world, what reality are you guys living in?! One that has seen immense benefits from the Industrial Revolution and previous waves of automation.

GeoAtreides 6mo ago
you might want to brush up on the short and medium consequences of the industrial revolution and the dark satanic mills where children were maimed or where people worked for 12h a day in horrendous conditions. Do you think because 2 dev are now super productive with AI, the company will keep the other average 30 devs? no, of course not, they will fire and pocket the difference. Same for other industries, where AI will slowly diffuse like a poisonous gas and displace jobs and people, leaving behind a crippled white collar class. The profits will not trickle down and the increased productivity will be a hatchet, not a plough.
- senordevnyc 6mo ago
  where children were maimed or where people worked for 12h a day in horrendous conditions Such things were super uncommon before the industrial revolution, I'm sure.
  - zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
    Working conditions did decline as a result of industrialization. It wasn't until around the 20th century that we could say working conditions were better for most people than pre-industrial society.
    - xvector 6mo ago
      More workers died working the fields prior to the Industrial Revolution, than in factories.
      - catlifeonmars 6mo ago
        Source?
        xvector 6mo ago
        > The rapid urbanisation that accompanied the Industrial Revolution in Britain is often argued to have been accompanied by a dramatic worsening of urban conditions [...] However, demographic evidence suggests that death rates were much higher in towns in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries than in the nineteenth century, and that the Industrial Revolution was accompanied by profound improvements in the survival of urban residents, especially infants and rural migrants. > early industrialisation coincided with significant improvements in survival, especially in towns (Buer, 2013; Davenport, 2020a; Landers, 1993; Wrigley et al., 1997) > population growth rates in excess of 1% per year would have resulted in falling real wages and hunger in any previous period [...] the fact that wages kept pace at all with increasing population should be viewed as a major achievement (Crafts and Mills, 2020; Wrigley, 2011). Davenport, Romola J. (2021). "Mortality, migration and epidemiological change in English cities, 1600–1870." International Journal of Paleopathology, 34, 37–49. PMC7611108.
        GeoAtreides 6mo ago
        Nobody argued how many people died during the Industrial Revolution or before; quality of life, on the other hand... That being said. You cite a study implying (you, not the study) the Industrial Revolution was what lead to lower death rates, so it's all good. But that's not what the study says: > These patterns are better explained by changes in breastfeeding practices and the prevalence or virulence of particular pathogens than by changes in sanitary conditions or poverty. Mortality patterns amongst young adult migrants were affected by a shift from acute to chronic infectious diseases over the period. "than by changes in sanitary conditions or poverty" [my emphasis] But wait! there's more! from the same study: > The available evidence indicates a decline in urban mortality in the period c.1750-1820, especially amongst infants and (probably) rural-urban migrants. "especially amongst infants and (probably) rural-urban migrants" ...where is the industrial revolution here? And if that was not enough: >Mortality at ages 1-4 years demonstrated a more complex pattern, falling between 1750 and 1830 before rising abruptly in the mid-nineteenth century. "rising abruptly in the mid-nineteenth century" turns out industrial revolution did in fact raise mortality and death rates
- xvector 6mo ago
  > Do you think because 2 dev are now super productive with AI, the company will keep the other average 30 devs? no, of course not, they will fire and pocket the difference Yes, they will keep the other devs that can figure out how to use AI well. Businesses want to grow.
  - scorpioxy 6mo ago
    That hasn't been my experience or the experience of anyone I know or have talked to about how LLMs have affected their work. The parent comment explains what happened. The businesses fired the staff and pocketed the difference. The result? Growth, at least on paper, as you're saying. Previously they were paying for 10 people and now they're paying for 2 so more profit yay! Of course this is a short term gain which might result in long term pain. That last part remains to be seen.
  - kjkjadksj 6mo ago
    Businesses are competing for the same pie. They can’t all be growing. There aren’t enough clients. There isn’t enough money.

by xvector 6mo ago

GeoAtreides 6mo ago

you might want to brush up on the short and medium consequences of the industrial revolution and the dark satanic mills where children were maimed or where people worked for 12h a day in horrendous conditions. Do you think because 2 dev are now super productive with AI, the company will keep the other average 30 devs? no, of course not, they will fire and pocket the difference. Same for other industries, where AI will slowly diffuse like a poisonous gas and displace jobs and people, leaving behind a crippled white collar class. The profits will not trickle down and the increased productivity will be a hatchet, not a plough.

senordevnyc 6mo ago
where children were maimed or where people worked for 12h a day in horrendous conditions Such things were super uncommon before the industrial revolution, I'm sure.
- zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
  Working conditions did decline as a result of industrialization. It wasn't until around the 20th century that we could say working conditions were better for most people than pre-industrial society.
  - xvector 6mo ago
    More workers died working the fields prior to the Industrial Revolution, than in factories.
    - catlifeonmars 6mo ago
      Source?
      - xvector 6mo ago
        > The rapid urbanisation that accompanied the Industrial Revolution in Britain is often argued to have been accompanied by a dramatic worsening of urban conditions [...] However, demographic evidence suggests that death rates were much higher in towns in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries than in the nineteenth century, and that the Industrial Revolution was accompanied by profound improvements in the survival of urban residents, especially infants and rural migrants. > early industrialisation coincided with significant improvements in survival, especially in towns (Buer, 2013; Davenport, 2020a; Landers, 1993; Wrigley et al., 1997) > population growth rates in excess of 1% per year would have resulted in falling real wages and hunger in any previous period [...] the fact that wages kept pace at all with increasing population should be viewed as a major achievement (Crafts and Mills, 2020; Wrigley, 2011). Davenport, Romola J. (2021). "Mortality, migration and epidemiological change in English cities, 1600–1870." International Journal of Paleopathology, 34, 37–49. PMC7611108.
        GeoAtreides 6mo ago
        Nobody argued how many people died during the Industrial Revolution or before; quality of life, on the other hand... That being said. You cite a study implying (you, not the study) the Industrial Revolution was what lead to lower death rates, so it's all good. But that's not what the study says: > These patterns are better explained by changes in breastfeeding practices and the prevalence or virulence of particular pathogens than by changes in sanitary conditions or poverty. Mortality patterns amongst young adult migrants were affected by a shift from acute to chronic infectious diseases over the period. "than by changes in sanitary conditions or poverty" [my emphasis] But wait! there's more! from the same study: > The available evidence indicates a decline in urban mortality in the period c.1750-1820, especially amongst infants and (probably) rural-urban migrants. "especially amongst infants and (probably) rural-urban migrants" ...where is the industrial revolution here? And if that was not enough: >Mortality at ages 1-4 years demonstrated a more complex pattern, falling between 1750 and 1830 before rising abruptly in the mid-nineteenth century. "rising abruptly in the mid-nineteenth century" turns out industrial revolution did in fact raise mortality and death rates
xvector 6mo ago
> Do you think because 2 dev are now super productive with AI, the company will keep the other average 30 devs? no, of course not, they will fire and pocket the difference Yes, they will keep the other devs that can figure out how to use AI well. Businesses want to grow.
- scorpioxy 6mo ago
  That hasn't been my experience or the experience of anyone I know or have talked to about how LLMs have affected their work. The parent comment explains what happened. The businesses fired the staff and pocketed the difference. The result? Growth, at least on paper, as you're saying. Previously they were paying for 10 people and now they're paying for 2 so more profit yay! Of course this is a short term gain which might result in long term pain. That last part remains to be seen.
- kjkjadksj 6mo ago
  Businesses are competing for the same pie. They can’t all be growing. There aren’t enough clients. There isn’t enough money.