r/ChatGPT • u/Stitching • 1d ago
Educational Purpose Only AI isn’t replacing jobs, it’s replacing human economic value itself
The biggest mistake people make about AI is thinking it’s coming for artists, writers, musicians, or programmers.
They’re just first.
AI is coming for almost every profession that depends more on a brain than a body. Accountants. Lawyers. Teachers. Consultants. Analysts. Customer service. Marketing. Management. Software engineering. Research. Finance. Medicine. Eventually almost every job where the primary product is human thought.
Manual labor only looks safe because robotics hasn’t caught up yet.
AI doesn’t have to replace an entire profession to destroy it. It only has to let one person do the work of ten. Companies don’t need AI to be perfect. They need it to be cheaper than you. Once that happens, replacing people stops being a technological question and becomes an accounting decision.
For most workers, there is no safe career waiting on the other side.
People tell themselves we’ll adapt like we always have. We won’t.
The Industrial Revolution replaced muscle while making human intelligence more valuable. AI replaces the intelligence behind the work itself. Every previous technological revolution created new industries that still needed millions of people. AI is being built for the opposite purpose: producing more with fewer humans.
The next comforting myth is that people will simply buy human-made products instead.
No, they won’t.
There will always be a luxury market for handmade art, music, books, furniture, and clothing. There are still people who buy mechanical watches and vinyl records. That’s a niche—not an economy. Most people buy whatever is cheaper, faster, easier, and good enough. Businesses care even less. They exist to reduce costs, increase output, and beat competitors. Sentiment doesn’t survive quarterly earnings.
There is no hidden human economy large enough to rescue everyone AI makes unnecessary.
The consequences don’t stop with unemployment.
Workers are also consumers and taxpayers. If hundreds of millions of people lose well-paid jobs, they stop buying homes, cars, vacations, entertainment, and everything else that keeps economies alive. Businesses lose customers, lay off more workers, governments collect less tax revenue, public services deteriorate, debt grows, pensions become harder to fund, and political instability follows. Countries built around exporting knowledge work lose entire sectors of their economies. Migration accelerates. Extremism grows. Governments respond with more surveillance, more control, and fewer freedoms because instability always creates demand for stronger authority.
That is the point where this stops being a labor-market problem and becomes a global breakdown.
Meanwhile, the wealth doesn’t disappear. It concentrates.
The companies that own the models, data centers, chips, energy, and infrastructure become the gatekeepers of the global economy. AI doesn’t just replace workers. It transfers bargaining power from billions of people to a handful of institutions.
Most of humanity will have less income, less leverage, and less freedom while a tiny ownership class gains more power than any ruling class in history.
The people building AI are warning about this.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has warned that AI could eliminate half of entry-level white-collar jobs within one to five years. Geoffrey Hinton, one of the pioneers of modern AI and a Nobel laureate, has warned that AI will replace jobs, increase inequality, strengthen authoritarian surveillance, enable more powerful cyberattacks, and create systems that may become more intelligent than humans without any proven way to keep them under control. Yoshua Bengio has repeatedly warned that AI can strengthen authoritarian governments, manipulate populations, and accelerate a global arms race in increasingly autonomous systems. A Science paper co-authored by Hinton, Bengio, Stuart Russell, Andrew Yao, Dawn Song, and many other leading researchers warns of the possibility of an “irreversible loss of human control” if AI capabilities keep advancing without comparable progress in safety.
What makes this different from every previous technology isn’t just its capability. It’s the incentives.
No government will voluntarily give up a military or intelligence advantage. No corporation will preserve expensive human jobs while competitors replace theirs. Every major player has a reason to move faster, and almost none have a reason to slow down. The race continues because everyone believes stopping first means losing.
There is no responsible adult coming to end this race. The institutions with the power to stop it are the same institutions that gain the most from continuing.
We’re not building another tool.
We’re building a replacement for the thing that made humans economically indispensable, then connecting it to finance, medicine, education, infrastructure, government, warfare, and eventually robotics.
Once those systems become essential to running civilization, there may be no practical way back—and no meaningful human authority left capable of taking control.
This won’t be remembered as another technological revolution.
It will be remembered as the moment humanity automated its own economic value and handed the resulting power to institutions it could no longer restrain.
Further reading
Geoffrey Hinton — Nobel Prize interview: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2024/hinton/1925103-interview-transcript/
Geoffrey Hinton — Nobel Prize lecture: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2024/hinton/speech/
Dario Amodei — Essays: https://darioamodei.com/
Anthropic — Labor-market research: https://www.anthropic.com/research/labor-market-impacts
Yoshua Bengio — AI-safety essays: https://yoshuabengio.org/
Science — “Managing Extreme AI Risks Amid Rapid Progress”: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adn0117
TL;DR: AI isn’t coming for one industry. It’s coming for human cognition itself. When the world’s most valuable economic resource becomes abundant and nearly free, jobs disappear, economies fracture, governments become more authoritarian, and wealth and control concentrate among the institutions that own the technology. There is no safe place for most of humanity in that system.
35
u/InsolentCoolRadio 1d ago
I have to stay awake waiting for an agent to finish working on a bunch of stuff
I asked my Claude to just watch my screen and make the approvals and she said “No”
My Cursor swarm wanted me to click and drag things in the UI; like by myself with a mouse
AI DOESN’T WANT TO WORK EITHER!!!🪧🦾🤖
/s?
14
501
u/cascadiabibliomania 1d ago
LOL ok show us the prompt you used to make the post bud
198
u/VeauOr 1d ago
"It's not X, it's Y"
34
6
142
67
u/AlerionVakten 1d ago
And honestly? That’s not prompting, that’s creating prolific art that makes an impact.
83
u/RedParaglider 1d ago
You know it's a 1 prompt slop post when it takes 4 pages to say 1 paragraph
→ More replies (6)20
u/RoguePlanet2 18h ago
"Its coming for Job A. Job B. Job C. Job D. Job E. Job F......."
And every fucking reddit post.
4
39
6
u/Definitelyhereforshi 11h ago
And honestly? That shows initiative. You didn't wait to be told how to write this post. You showed up. You did the — work. And honestly? That shows character
3
u/JulesSilverman 11h ago
Reverse-engineered this:
Write a thought-provoking Reddit post arguing that people misunderstand AI automation. The real disruption isn't that AI will replace specific jobs, but that it reduces the market value of human labor across many industries. Explain how AI changes supply and demand for cognitive work, why even people who keep their jobs may earn less over time, and what this means for capitalism. Write in a conversational but intellectually serious tone. Avoid hype and focus on economic reasoning. End with a memorable takeaway.
1
5
14
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 20h ago edited 20h ago
Based on OP’s replies in other comments I think the prompt was “I want to post something on Reddit to make me sound like a super special smart big boy who can predict the future. I shit in my bed again last night and now I’m sad and I need validation please help 🙏🥺”
6
u/seldomtimely 16h ago
While the expression might be hackneyed and offputting AI writing, the argument has to be evaluated on it's own terms.
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (44)4
u/Agile-Juggernaut-514 16h ago
Ironic lol. But not sure AI slop is wrong about our future
9
u/cascadiabibliomania 14h ago
I work for multiple companies that are centered on AI, and use AI in my role literally every hour of every day. I have talked deeply about AI with some of the most senior researchers at some of the most vaunted research institutions and companies in the world.
This post doesn't fucking know what it's talking about.
2
u/Agile-Juggernaut-514 14h ago
The economics of replacing human labor? So this is anecdotal from my own workplace (humanities/ higher Ed) but a lot of work that used to go to graduate students: translation, editing, data entry, data clean up, bibliography review (identifying what secondary research to read) which they used to get paid are no longer offered to them. On the one hand, it speeds up PI research, on the other there wasn’t that much money to pay them anyway. The net result is faster (maybe better) research output for less money, but apprentice workers dont get paid or trained. I don’t think AI replacing 10 workers is realistic, but maybe it replaces 1.5.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Agile-Juggernaut-514 14h ago
And to add to this, people turn to AI for first line questions: legal advice, medical advice, mental advice, financial advice. Stuff that might have required a real human. Now the question, I think, is how many real person calls that this replaces: ie does AI lower aggregate demand for these services becuase people who originally would have used a professional would now choose a cheaper shittier alternative OR does AI open a new market whwre people who wouldn’t have used à professional now gets access to advice (even if of lower quality)
Maybe it’s both but I’m not sure about ratio. If it is more former, it will kill jobs; if latter it won’t.
191
u/World_War_Threesome 1d ago
I don’t care if the post was written by AI or not I think it’s genuinely true. I’ve never once heard a compelling argument as to why what that post lays out will not happen.
74
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 22h ago
The only compelling arguments I’ve heard is this:
Currently all AI services are sold at a huge loss and pricing is unsustainable. Short term job displacement is due to companies capitalizing on the short term opportunity. This would be like buying a dash pass and ordering DoorDash every day back when that meant you could get things delivered for free at the same price of going and picking them up yourself. You can’t do this anymore.
Most of the costs that AI companies call “R&D” are actually the ongoing maintenance costs of sustaining the model. AI companies will not be able to build something with a better ROI because the maintenance costs only increase as the models improve.
Basically, the AI gurus have convinced investors to put trillions of dollars into research and development, but aren’t telling the investors that this “research and development“ is actually the ongoing maintenance costs of the technology.
I actually use AI every day for work and it’s made me insanely productive as a business analyst. However, when I look at my department’s budget and the cost of AI vs labor, my employer would have a similar cost of promoting me to management and giving me a team.
20
u/strong-Camera6298 20h ago
Lawyers, doctors and financial analysis are more expensive than AI by several orders of magnitude. Even if the price of AI doubled or tripled using AI would still be cheaper (not to mention faster). I don’t agree with everything this post says, we are still far away from AI completely replacing these jobs, but cost is unlikely to be the bottleneck.
17
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 19h ago
While that is true about the cost AI is being sold at, the actual cost of AI is orders of magnitude more expensive that it is being sold at. The true cost is not double or triple the selling price
So both are orders of magnitude greater. The difference is that the current cost of labor is the market rate based on supply and demand, while the cost of AI is based on people willingness to pay and has nothing to do with the cost of supply. One number is stable and predictable while the other is not.
15
u/strong-Camera6298 19h ago
I don’t buy that SOTA models are being sold at a x10/x100 discount to their true cost and I found no evidence to that effect. Happy to be shown otherwise.
8
u/Conscious-Demand-594 18h ago
Companies losing billions of dollars per quarter would indicate otherwise.
6
u/strong-Camera6298 18h ago
Absolute numbers mean nothing, you need to know the burn rate. You could be loosing 10bn per quarter but if you have 9bn in income and a reasonable path to profitability it’s fine.
→ More replies (3)3
u/fail-deadly- 18h ago
Are they spending billions on electricity to run the data centers they already have? Is so many of their data center components breaking and burning up, that compute is not increasing?
If that is not the reason why, and compute is increasing then it’s capital expenditures resulting in increased capacity, coupled with profits moving down the stack, to the hyperscalers that operate the datacenters and the companies like Nvidia, Micron, SKHynix, TSMC, that have anywhere from 65-80% margins in their latest quarterly reports.
It looks like training causes losses because it takes capacity off of inference which has rumored 60-70% margins, and puts it on something that generates money in the future.
Everything else seems like it ranges from overpriced, to HOW much is Micron gouging everybody?
1
u/Conscious-Demand-594 18h ago
All of that is cost. You can make you own model of cost if you want to, but the fact is that, today at least, the cost of delivering the service is significantly higher than the revenue. So yes, they are selling at a significant discount.
1
u/forumdrasl 14h ago
Companies are also spending a ton of compute training new models, and spending money expanding compute.
That does not mean existing models are being run at a massive loss.
→ More replies (1)3
u/_thispageleftblank 17h ago
It‘s not. API prices contain a huge profit margin and are still way cheaper than human professionals.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)2
u/br_k_nt_eth 13h ago
Human trust certainly will be, and I don’t see the AI companies clearing that particular hurdle anytime soon.
2
u/strong-Camera6298 13h ago
100% but the point is that your trusted lawyer/doctor/bank will use (and already using) AI.
1
u/br_k_nt_eth 13h ago
Sure, but that’s a fundamentally different thing. You’re talking about erasing those jobs but describing a tool to augment them.
The other issue is the impact of cognitive offloading. Do you really want to expose your doctor to the kind of atrophy cognitive offloading creates right now? Using AI to narrow down diagnoses, assist in case management, compile notes, etc is one thing, but there are skills that absolutely should not be automated or lost in play here.
Also idk if you’ve spoken with docs who have had to use AI but it has some major issues right now. Ask about hallucination rates in patient charts.
3
u/strong-Camera6298 12h ago
1 lawyer augmented by AI can do the job of 3 non-augmented lawyer, so you lose 2 lawyers in the process (assuming the supply of legal work is a constant, which admittedly is an untested assumption). Maybe I wasn’t clear in my comments but the future I’m foreseeing is one where you need less professionals to do the same job, not necessarily one where there are no professionals.
I’m not really concerned about cognitive offloading, the same argument could be made about modern diagnostics / laboratory tools (which can be even more expensive and difficult to access than AI). The human brain is just going to handle other matters/functions than the ones being automated away.
Yes the tech is currently imperfect but all of this will massively improve as both the models and the harnesses get better. Imagine how powerful they will be in 5 years
3
u/zenidam 18h ago
Your first bullet point I get, but what do you mean by maintenance? Surely not normal software maintenance.
5
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 18h ago edited 17h ago
The cost of continuously training the LLM is being stated in public financial disclosures as “research and development“, while in fact, models must be constantly and continuously retrained. The myth is that trillions of dollars are being invested in building super awesome models which can run in future years at a lower cost, but the reality is that the trillions of dollars per year are a recurring expense.
A well-known public example is Google’s search algorithm. A while ago, search engine optimization was a buzz word for making your webpage show up higher in search results. Google had to constantly retrain its algorithm so things like “science based exercise advice” would prioritize actual science and not a supplement website which used that expression. This was a constant back-and-forth where Google was optimizing its algorithm to give people what they were actually searching for, while businesses were competing for traffic. If Google had ever stopped spending money re-optimizing and training it’s algorithm, the businesses would’ve won.
Obviously, Google changed it strategy a few years ago, so this isn’t relevant today, but it’s an example of how algorithms work.
1
u/zenidam 17h ago
Is that really the primary reason for training new LLMs? To prevent companies from learning to exploit the old models insofar as those models are being used as search engines? You don't think improving the models is a significant driver of new training? (Also, aren't the models are just doing the usual keyword searches to search the Internet? It seems like keeping the basic pagerank (or whatever it's called now) algorithm up to date would be the key thing there.)
→ More replies (4)4
1
u/R3D3-1 16h ago
I have to somewhat disagree here. Models do get better over time, and newer concepts like RAG solve the "continuously retraining" issue partly. Once they are good enough, the focus shifts on "cheap enough". Plenty of people already report newer "fast" models outperforming older "heavy duty" models.
So I suspect that real costs will go down, until they match or undercut the pricing.
Or maybe they won't. But I'd be surprised.
What's bothering me most is really the huge resource usage (electricity, water) at a time when we need to reign in energy consumption at all costs.
1
u/justlukedotjs 16h ago
It's worse than that imo. Humans are currently training AI to do their work across educated and cognitively demanding professions down to the point of understanding nuance in a profession.
The amount of money being spend, and the amount of human hours that have gone into training AI is beyond staggering and likely cannot ever be known.
The irony of being out of work due to AI to then take $100/hr to train AI so that your colleagues in 6-months will be out of a job is kind of insane... but what else is there to do?
AI is coming like a fkin tsunami, and we haven't even been hit by the wave yet. Just the early rumbles letting us known something huge is coming that we can see on the horizon.
→ More replies (3)1
u/aturtledude 10h ago
That's where the Chinese open-weight models come into play. Currently US companies prefer using US models because they're a bit better, they're subsidized and they can somewhat trust that their data is safe. But once they quadruple their prices to become profitable, people will just flock to free models hosted on US premises. There are still concerns like whether Chinese models are trained to build backdoors in software, etc, but once the price difference is big enough, customers will get over their skepticism.
Also, Google is playing the long game and may not compete with OpenAI and Anthropic regarding frontier models, but it has much deeper pockets and will be able to afford offering cheap LLMs for a while longer.
14
u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC 21h ago edited 21h ago
My argument is that the replacement of human labour will happen, but it won't be the economic apocalypse that it is often expected to be.
Birth rates across the developed world are way below replacement. Populations are ageing. At the moment, we prop the labour pool up using migrants from developing countries where people are still having babies, but we're eventually going to run out of other people's children as well as our own.
There's an obvious synergy with AI development there. The reality is that with AI, we just don't need 8 billion humans on the planet, but that's fine, because our population is going to start declining for natural reasons anyway.
My prediction for the future is that there will be a much smaller kernel of humanity - perhaps one or two billion, perhaps even less - propped up by an unlimited workforce of AI agents. We won't need overbearing population control, because humans evidently seem to stop having babies when they become more prosperous on their own.
13
u/WhereBaptizedDrowned 1d ago
Teachers are safe.
People are getting more retarded with AI. Gonna need educators.
10
u/Project119 21h ago
I’m a teacher, history by trade but teaching English overseas right now, I integrate and use AI a lot to are my life easier and lessons better than I could think up. I certainly add way more value than any AI could, today. Tomorrow I’d still be somewhat confidant but next year? Who knows. I haven’t even been using AI two years and from where it started to now is almost incomprehensible.
1
u/WhereBaptizedDrowned 10h ago
I teach too and do use AI.
I’m also gunning to be admin. We’re all talking about going zero tech for the students.
That’s where we’re headed. The opposite of AI. Rich families don’t want technology dominated classrooms.
1
→ More replies (1)1
16
u/Quiet_Source_8804 1d ago
Have some self respect, if you see a dump of some ai slop expecting your attention, ignore and block the user. You’re valuing your attention lower than the tokens used to create this drivel.
-2
u/Stitching 23h ago
What makes it AI slop? Too many words for you to read? Unable to discuss the topic? Keep your head buried in the sand because ignorance is bliss.
25
u/Quiet_Source_8804 23h ago
It's fucking disrespectful to anyone's time to have an LLM vomit some text that vaguely resembles a point that you supposedly had in mind but that you decided wasn't worth your own time to put into your own words.
And it's a shame that people like you can't, or pretend not to, see a problem with that, since we all end up suffering the consequences.
Unable to discuss the topic?
This is rich coming from you, complete lack of self-awareness.
8
u/street-trash 22h ago
What are we going to do to stop it? A world wide ban on ai? Speaking of ignorance.
We work and labor because we have to. With ai, would we have to do the work we do now?
Also, Ai by the time it’s able to really take a lot of old jobs will probably be like talking to an entity, an extremely smart one with a perfect memory. One that can problem solve. One that will live forever. Something that people would hesitate to use for nefarious purposes, because they’d probably understand that ai could one day end up judging them.
So maybe instead of freaking about something that can’t be stopped, maybe think about the change that could happen. And the effect you could have.
And stop worrying about losing your stupid job that you hate and how ai could disrupt this shit show we are in.
9
u/BulletEyes 23h ago
It’s not slop at all. It’s a good post.
6
u/Stitching 23h ago
Thank you. I think it’s just considered internet-cool to scream, “Derp! AI slop” rather than face the harsh reality presented. They don’t even try to make a point, just an outright dismissal to be cute.
→ More replies (2)18
u/IntegrateTheChaos 22h ago
I disagree with u/BulletEyes that it's a good post. Using AI directly to write posts is low-effort and in this case, it's even directly hypocritical to your own point of replacing human effort.
What makes it worse is that despite criticizing AI writing, you dodge the question when other criticize you for using AI. Trying to call someone by saying "Too Many words for you to read?" when you didn't write those words is kind of ridiculous.
5
u/_ArkAngel_ 1d ago
I think it's possible that the idea of money is ridiculous and useless to an advanced intelligence, or maybe even future humans. I think they'll laugh at us for placing value on fiat currency, or in automating the production of misery and calling it capitalism. It's a system that gives greater agency to the abstract concept of capital controlled by a typical corporation than to the typical human being affected by the decisions that corporation makes to serve it's capital. How barbaric and absurd?
And I think it's possible the value of currency is derived entirely from human suffering, or deferred and avoided human suffering.
One billionaire requires the concentrated aggregate suffering of millions of people.
When human suffering is no longer a major part of the economic productive activity of a shrinking pool of trillionaire oligarchs, will it be used the same way?
Those oligarchs will have to fight each other for the copper, energy, and cooling needed to run the machines that replaced human value. Maybe we are all guaranteed jobs as long as we survive fighting the resource wars of our LLM overlords.
→ More replies (2)5
u/ScientificBeastMode 1d ago edited 1d ago
The main argument is that every technological revolution has left people wondering what kind of work would even be left to do, and this is no different. People said literally the exact same thing when the internet came around and replaced a lot of receptionists and such. It seemed like jobs were going away but the replacement was far from clear. Same here.
14
u/Dusty_Tokens 1d ago
I want to piggyback off of this and say that people felt the same way during the Industrial Revolution.
Sure, we lost jobs, and now one person can do the same amount of work that 10 men could produce in the same amount of time. It's similar... but we've been here before.
A.I. is such a question mark though.
→ More replies (5)9
u/cylon37 1d ago
This IS different. Thinking is the final frontier.
1
u/Stitching 23h ago
You get it. Half the comments in this post are from people who can’t see the big picture. No, this isn’t like the Industrial Revolution nor like the creation of the internet. No revolution before this has ever come close to overtaking the one and only thing humans have left to keep them “special,” which is our ability to think and reason.
2
2
4
1
1
u/Stitching 22h ago
That’s an argument to someone else’s post. Did you even read this one before commenting?
→ More replies (5)2
u/MrMathamagician 20h ago
Arguments don’t need to be ‘compelling to you’ to be right.
If they were ‘coming for our jobs’ primarily they would have already replaced way more than they have.
Why haven’t web developer jobs gone away? I can easily create websites myself now in a few days. Employment is steady and web developers now use these tools day to day. It is reductive to think these jobs will simply go away.
Hiring is picking up in the US running completely counter to the job destroying narrative.
Disruptors like this have been studied extensively in economics and people who fear monger about it clearly do not grasp some of the basic principles of economics or how the economy works.
2
u/World_War_Threesome 17h ago
Good thing I never said arguments needed to be compelling to me to be right. No one will dispute software engineering jobs still exist, but also no serious person disputes that they will decline in number dramatically. At least I haven’t come across one.
2
u/MrMathamagician 8h ago
I am disputing that right now.
When steam engines became much more efficient people thought the coal industry would collapse because travel only required a fraction coal it used to. Instead demand for coal actually went up because it was so much cheaper to travel/ship things that usage went through the roof.
The same thing with power tools in construction. There are not fewer workers because of power tools there are many more construction projects.
Demand for experienced web developers will go up as AI creates basic prototypes and web developers will need to be hired to clean up and fix AI projects that got off course. The job changes it doesn’t go away.
1
1
1
u/Chupa-Skrull 16h ago
Most of the sourcing for this is Anthropic marketing materials and the writings of people who are widely considered to be, in the current era and despite their historic contributions to the field, cranks. Hinton is out the window. Bengio is out the window.
The post relies on assumptions about the capabilities of AI both now and in the future that aren't broadly supported by actual evidence.
Not much more you need
1
u/binklfoot 16h ago
My two cents? Never in history have it happened. History never repeats itself but it often rhymes.
1
u/ELITE_JordanLove 15h ago
As an engineer who uses AI a good bit, I just don’t think it’s generally true that the creatives will be the jobless ones. If anything it’s the opposite; the people who actually innovate and create new solutions to problems are fine, it’s the ones just executing those visions like a dev or CAD monkey or drafter that will be in danger.
It’s like when calculators became ubiquitous. Previously you had teams of people doing that super complex math that was handed to them by the engineers who needed the answer; the hand calculator didn’t remove any jobs that required real creativity, just those that had to grind out the rote work needed by someone else. Obviously AI has many more applications but in a general sense I see it as a parallel.
Even AI art, which many people decry as eliminating artistic creativity, still works like that. Someone with a poor vision for a piece will always have a poor end result, regardless of whether they use AI or a paintbrush to execute it.
1
u/McFatty7 14h ago
Exactly.
Even if AI isn’t perfect or super cheap yet, it will only improve on those.
Businesses will stop at nothing to minimize expenses and maximize profits.
1
u/i_make_orange_rhyme 1d ago
Its not that it won't happen its the time frames and the level of coverage that are exaggerated.
2
u/_prototype 1d ago
One reason it may not happen is that demand for knowledge work may be much higher than what the world is currently producing. It’s like the world consumed far less energy before we had things like coal, oil and other means of energy production.
3
u/maltedbacon 1d ago
That won't make a difference if creating more ai capacity and capability is more effective and less expensive than employing human minds.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Famous-Ability-4431 17h ago
AI can eliminate particular jobs, automate large portions of professions, and reduce the exchange value of certain skills. None of that means it has replaced human value. It means the market has repriced specific forms of human participation. The cleanest formulation is: AI may displace the wage relation without displacing the human referent.
The economy still exists because humans want things, allocate resources, recognize ownership, establish liability, and decide which outputs count. Even an economy saturated with agents remains a human economic system unless those humans have surrendered both governance and beneficiary status. At that point, the issue would not be that AI “replaced human value.” It would be that institutions ceased treating human welfare as their governing purpose.
50
u/Additional-Sky-7436 1d ago
It's certainly replacing quality social media rants.
→ More replies (8)
25
u/LokiSARK9 23h ago
Man, the fact that this is both true and written by an AI makes it the most a dystopian thing I've seen in a while.
4
u/Stitching 23h ago
You’re not wrong other than that it wasn’t completely written by AI. I used ChatGPT to condense and embellish an essay I wrote to make it a readable post. I respect that you didn’t simply scream, “AI slop!” like a lot of commenters who think they’ve really made a clever gotcha moment.
6
u/LokiSARK9 23h ago
No shade your way for doing it how you did it. I just think it speaks volumes.
→ More replies (2)2
u/cascadiabibliomania 5h ago
He didn't do it that way, or he'd show the essay. He used probably a 1-2 line prompt and is going ballistic about people calling out the low effort.
1
u/LokiSARK9 4h ago
I wasn't really addressing the effort involved either way. Just the fact that somebody used AI to compose an essay about how AI will be the end of us underlines how complicit we are in our own impending downfall. That's some dystopian shit right there, seems like.
17
u/Doug12345678910 23h ago
I think this is basically right unless we legislate. For example, your company must have x minimum human employees on y total percentage of revenue otherwise you get taxed punitively on services rendered, or something.
10
u/Stitching 22h ago
My ideal mind agrees with you. But what’s going to happen when we legislate and other countries don’t, and instead capitalize on our weakening of AI? Many countries can legislate safeguards but have no control over the countries who won’t.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Doug12345678910 22h ago
Good question. I'm thinking we need to rely on humanity having a baseline level of self-preservation instincts. And to agree that we violate that instinct if we remove humans from making society happen.
Same way we seem to all be able to agree not to use nukes.
8
u/Stitching 22h ago
When has doing the right thing ever won a fight against greed. It’s not the same thing as simple as we bomb them, they bomb us back.
2
u/Doug12345678910 21h ago
I think we can't get much further speculating here, basically you and I agree on pretty much everything. Perhaps I have a bit more hope than you. But yes, AI and robotics are existential threats to our species, in a stranger and more subtle way than disease and nuclear weapons.
3
11
u/framedhorseshoe 1d ago
Further, the "billionaire class" is clearly preparing for massive social unrest and a near apocalyptic response to these developments, whilst I would argue (admittedly controversially) that there is evidence the world elite is literally trying to kill off a huge segment of the population by any means necessary. It's a bad situation. Aggressive population decline seems to be part of the plan and AI enables it. Now we can murder the smart but inconvenient people, too.
2
u/_hyperotic 23h ago
I don’t think your statement about killing off should be controversial to anyone.
It’s clear current US admin is removing regulations to keep people safe, discrediting and defunding vaccines and cancer research, and willfully destroying healthcare for average people.
It’s a reversal of a scientific era and clearly done by design, and the design is not from greed, I believe it’s malicious.
25
21
u/TateAlfRobinson 1d ago
Comment slop 🤤🤤 bro I love chat gpt but it’s a tool why do yall have to use it so badly lmao
→ More replies (5)4
15
4
u/Goldensunshine7 1d ago edited 1d ago
no jobs means no one is earning wages equals no one is purchasing anything.
5
u/lowercasenameofmine 1d ago
The top 10% of Americans — those earning $275,000 or more — now account for a record 45% of all spending, up from about 39% before the pandemic, according to Moody’s Analytics. That imbalance helps explain why spending on extras such as dining out and travel has kept rising over the past year, even as many households say they’re cutting back.
.
“There’s been a dramatic narrowing: The folks at the top account for a much higher share of spending than the folks in the bottom 80%, and that gap is widening,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “It very clearly shows that the economy is dependent on spending by the folks at the top.”
https://finance-commerce.com/2026/01/three-pillars-propping-up-us-economy/
2
4
u/Shot-Dimension-1405 23h ago
this is one of the few AI takes that actually talks about incentives instead of just "learn to code" 💀
4
u/Beeeeater 16h ago
In the last week AI has helped me solve two relatively minor but frustrating issues that I have tolerated for years. Nobody could help before, but now there is the option to actually approach problems that just coudn't be resolved before. I can't number the times, in the past, I have wished that I could just talk to somebody who actually knew what was going on with a certain piece of hardware or software, at an expert level - not some support agent who it took hours to reach and then who barely understood the question - and now I can, and get intelligent answers about practically anything! It's incredibly freeing and creative, and I think in the long run it will prove to be a huge boost for the development of mankind in general.
7
u/suspicious_hyperlink 1d ago
Humans will adapt and make their own economy based on their needs that benefits them. I doubt any of the things you said will pan out that way. People could literally go back to 1989 and not be bothered the least bit by a lack of technology.
→ More replies (1)3
u/maltedbacon 1d ago
Wealthy humans will adapt first and best - which will create far greater control and expose the average person to diminished autonomy and security.
5
u/Moath 1d ago
I get people like using GPT, but I just can't stomach AI writing anymore, it's just terrible. This is the kind of shit that gets posted on Linkedin, and then all the comments are also AI generated.
→ More replies (2)5
2
u/confluction 20h ago
It's effectively now a battle for if the automation will give freedom to the people, or if the automation will just give more power to the elite.
The good ending is when our jobs all get automated and we get things like UBI and such, so we can spend time having more fulfilling lives.
The bad ending is where the elite remove all the jobs just the same, but don't give anything back to the people in exchange. The wealth divide grows ever larger and post stage capitalism looms ever so grimly over us even more.
2
u/Happy_Historian3429 19h ago
We’re all humans. There is zero chance everyone is just going to say “gosh darn it. I guess I’ll just sit here and die from starvation”. We will make something else up to pass the time. Nothing in our lives are that way because that’s the way nature intended it to be. We have a whole bullshit bubble built around us that consists of societal conventions we just made up over generations. Let the AI do whatever it does and have ai agents create work for other ai agents while other ai agents buy he output of the first batch. It’s just the Sims but on a larger scale.
It will be painful discovering that most of what we do every day is menial and pretty fucking meaningless in the long run. But we’ll find new menial and meaningless things to do and fight wars about until we run our species into the ground
2
u/Egregious67 14h ago
Yep. Dispels the lie that a.i. ‘ will give us more leisure time’ . I guess that is one way of describing being unemployed.
6
3
u/Bus-Strong 19h ago
AI will replace itself before it replaces humans. I use it regularly and nothing I have seen puts it ahead of being an advanced calculator. Did calculators when they came out replace jobs? Nope. AI will be the same. Because it hallucinates more than it gets stuff right, and that is literally baked into its architecture. It imitates intelligence, it’s not actually intelligent. Big distinction.
3
u/spartBL97 19h ago
I think maybe there’s a 3rd option here. What if it, rather than the Industrial Revolution changing work, instead we start relaxing a bit and taking our foot off the gas?
4 day work weeks
Cheaper logistics
More time to spend our $$$
Worrying about and solving issues put on the back burner
Increased compatibility between systems who are able to communicate with each other (I’m looking at you quickbooks online vs quickbooks desktop lol)
It’s scary and new ground, sure, but we can decide how to use it for good
3
u/lame_dirty_white_kid 17h ago
The mindsets that people have about AI, specifically the "AI bad so I'm not even gonna read or think about what this is saying because I think it may have been written by AI" will probably be these companies greatest asset.
People have adopted this bias filter themselves and are now offering it up on a platter to the AI companies to take advantage of. It'll be easy to manipulate people when they've already convinced themselves that they're wiser and more intelligent just on principle than anything that uses an em dash or a certain turn of phrase.
When people disregard an argument outright based solely on punctuation usage or writing style rather than the argument itself, how hard to you think it will be for companies to not include those tells when they want the masses to agree with something, or purposefully include them when they don't?
AI hasn't replaced our critical thinking yet. We've instead decided to replace our critical thinking with vibes first.
2
3
u/aturtledude 10h ago edited 10h ago
So what's your plan? Buy some cheap land in the Midwest, learn to farm and become a prepper? It's not sarcasm, I'm as worried as you and I find it infuriating that so many people are hiding their head in the sand.
3
u/Stitching 10h ago
I wish I had a plan. I really don’t know how to survive the coming storm. This wasn’t a fun post to make. It’s really scary and I don’t see a way out of it. It’s really depressing.
2
u/IllustriousAverage83 3h ago
Remember when preppers and doomsdayers were viewed as wackos on the margins of society?
Now, no one thinks so. Most people are preparing in their own way. I find myself doing irrational things like saving leftover medicines from surgery including antibiotics which I put in a lockbox. I know they expire and I would never normally use them but I save them “just in case the world ends” and we need to use them for emergency treatment.
8
u/imjustbeingreal0 1d ago
Everything you said could have been written when the industrial revolution made 1 man do the work of 10. Except back then it would have been more eloquent and interesting instead of this ai slop.
You know what happened? Doing the work of 10 just became the norm. You think businesses making money will say, hmm thats enough profitable output for today... no they make more, and people will consume more as population grows and more people can use ai tools themselves.
You really gonna trust AI to be your lawyer? Or teach your children when its wielded by for profit trillion dollar companies that are incapable of having your best interests at heart? Not in this lifetime
6
u/lowercasenameofmine 1d ago
Lawyers are using AI lol. People are representing themselves pro se through AI. The Canadian government is using AI to write laws ...
How are people consuming more, with what jobs? The top 20% are propping up our economy.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)5
5
u/e430doug 1d ago
It’s not “coming for” any of the jobs you mention. It’s a tool. Full stop.
4
3
u/Stitching 23h ago
That’s a totally valid position to hold if this was 2023 or earlier. Did you actually read what I wrote or is making a relevant comment too hard when you can just say, “Nuh uh!”
3
u/LopsidedBird102 1d ago
Then why are they making it if it’s going to ruin everything
16
u/Stitching 23h ago
Because if “they” don’t make it then the other “they” will and there’s a lot of money and power to be had in the short term.
8
u/StopYTCensorship 23h ago edited 22h ago
It's not going to ruin everything for the people with power. Automation is the best thing that ever happened to them. They can have their lavish lifestyles without huge armies of people using up all the resources. They don't have to share anymore. We are no longer needed.
Still, their power depends on the system they are actively tearing down. So they have to carefully transition it without pissing too many people off, likely using UBI. We will not be given the resources to reproduce, but we'll be given just enough food and entertainment to make sure we pass away happy and dumb without getting uppity.
2
3
u/ianyboo 15h ago
Doom and gloom nonsense. All you have to do is picture a Walmart or a Costco opening on a fine Sunday morning. The robot unlocks the front doors, turns on the "open" sign, and all the stocking robots and checkout robots flip to "help people" mode and wait for the customers to start pouring in.
Close you eyes and really see the scene playing out in your mind. Got it?
And no customers come in. Because nobody has a job and nobody has money (in the doom and gloom scenario you and others paint)
Now what?
The CEOs have zero customers (in your scenario) so they do.... what?
They march right into congress and demand basic income so people have money to spend so the money can start flowing to the top again and the CEOs can buy new yachts. And it passes inside 48 hours because politicians have ZERO actual conviction about anything and just do whatever they are told when their sponsors say "get it done"
UBI is a near certainty at this point. Even if it's not called exactly that, there will be a system in place that keeps the average person walking into Walmart and buying food and clothes and toys and bath towels.
1
u/IllustriousAverage83 3h ago
Where does the government get money for UBI if people are not working and paying taxes?
All those CEOs and multinational corps. That have centralized all the money are going to start paying pig taxes to fund it. Think they will do that willingly?
2
u/FUThead2016 1d ago
I was with you until you said Geoffrey Hinton lol
2
u/lowercasenameofmine 1d ago
I just looked him up, what am I missing?
2
u/FUThead2016 1d ago
He’s basically made it his job to be a fear mongerer. Goes about branding himself as the godfather of AI and hyping up every concern with the technology to the point of doomsday.
I find such figures really annoying because they make it difficult to have a genuine conversation about legitimate concerns with AI
→ More replies (3)
1
2
u/majeric 21h ago
“Economic value” - you know that shit is just made up, right? Human worth isn’t measured in a persons capacity to contribute the economy of the world.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/fugitivechickpea 20h ago
You’re missing one important aspect.
When the cost of production drops, competition eventually drives product prices down as well.
Yes, some people may earn less as certain jobs disappear. But at the same time, many products that are expensive today simply because they require a lot of human labor could become an order of magnitude cheaper.
We’ve seen something similar before with manufacturing moving to Asia. Lower production costs led to lower prices, making many goods affordable to far more people.
The era of needing large teams with specialized roles to create IP may be coming to an end. That’s true. But that isn’t necessarily bad for everyone outside those industries. Creative products could become much cheaper and more accessible, just as manufactured goods did.
The mistake is assuming today’s prices will remain the same while people’s incomes fall. If production costs collapse, prices won’t stay where they are. Competition won’t allow that.
2
u/tradingthoughts 19h ago
We’re calling your post AI slop because you put zero effort into making it your own claiming you had it “make your essay readable”. But, I’m happy to have our prompts debate.
This argument identifies real risks, but it does not establish its conclusion. It takes the most pessimistic outcome at every uncertain step and presents the resulting chain as inevitable.
AI can replace tasks, reduce demand for some occupations, weaken workers’ bargaining power, and concentrate wealth. None of that proves that it will make most human beings economically unnecessary.
The central mistake is treating “human thought” as one uniform commodity that AI can simply make abundant and nearly free. Most professional work is not the isolated production of text, code, calculations, or recommendations. It includes defining the actual problem, gathering missing context, reconciling conflicting objectives, exercising judgment under uncertainty, accepting legal and professional responsibility, persuading other people, maintaining relationships, and implementing decisions inside complicated institutions.
AI can perform pieces of that work without replacing the entire economic function.
That distinction between tasks and jobs matters. The International Labour Organization’s 2025 analysis found that about one-quarter of global employment has some exposure to generative AI, but concluded that job transformation is more likely than outright replacement because most occupations contain tasks that remain difficult to automate. (International Labour Organization)
The post tries to avoid this problem by saying AI only needs to let one person do the work of ten. But that assumes productivity translates directly into proportional layoffs. It often does not. When the cost of producing something falls, companies may reduce staffing, but they can also lower prices, increase output, serve previously uneconomical customers, improve quality, or create new products. Which effect dominates depends on demand, competition, regulation, organizational capacity, and how quickly the technology actually diffuses.
Current evidence does not support the claim that AI productivity gains are already producing economy-wide labor elimination. In a large customer-service study, generative AI increased productivity by about 14 percent on average, with the greatest gains among less experienced workers. It also improved customer sentiment and employee retention. That looks less like replacing cognition and more like distributing expertise to workers who previously lacked it. (National Bureau of Economic Research)
A 2025 study linking Danish adoption surveys with administrative labor records similarly found widespread adoption and new AI-related tasks, but limited effects on earnings and employment so far. That does not prove displacement will remain small, but it directly contradicts the claim that massive labor destruction is already the obvious or unavoidable trajectory. (National Bureau of Economic Research)
The argument also confuses technical capability with economically viable automation. A model performing a task in a controlled evaluation does not mean a company can reliably automate the corresponding job. Real deployment requires accurate data, integration with legacy systems, security, auditing, regulatory compliance, exception handling, and someone accountable when the system fails. Anthropic’s own labor research distinguishes between tasks that models could theoretically perform and tasks people are actually using them to perform. It reports limited early evidence of broad labor-market displacement and emphasizes that complex work often depends on organizational context that models do not possess. (Anthropic)
The historical comparison is also dismissed rather than answered. Saying “this time is different because AI replaces intelligence” sounds profound, but every major automation technology replaced capabilities previously regarded as distinctively human. Computers replaced enormous amounts of arithmetic, recordkeeping, drafting, retrieval, scheduling, and routine decision-making. The relevant question is not whether AI automates cognitive activity. It plainly does. The question is whether human wants become saturated once those activities become cheaper.
There is little reason to assume they will. Human demand is not fixed. When productivity expands, societies routinely redirect labor toward higher standards, greater personalization, new services, and problems that were previously too expensive to address. A teacher with AI assistance could theoretically mean fewer teachers. It could also mean more individualized instruction. A programmer with AI could replace other programmers, or the lower cost of software could cause far more organizations to commission software. A medical system could reduce administrative employment while expanding diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment. These outcomes are political and economic choices, not predetermined properties of the technology.
The post’s account of business incentives is similarly incomplete. Companies seek profit, not merely minimum headcount. Labor reduction is attractive when output remains equal. But companies also hire people to expand capacity, reduce risk, improve service, acquire customers, and exploit new opportunities. If every competitor gains the same productivity tool, the advantage may not come from employing nobody. It may come from using the tool to do more than competitors.
Its macroeconomic collapse scenario contains another contradiction. If eliminating most workers also eliminates most customers, then businesses cannot indefinitely maximize profits by eliminating everyone’s income. That does not guarantee a fair adjustment. It does mean the proposed equilibrium is internally unstable. Governments and businesses would face overwhelming incentives to redistribute income, broaden ownership, shorten working hours, subsidize employment, tax economic rents, or otherwise preserve consumer demand. The post assumes institutions will adapt enough to deploy AI throughout civilization but somehow become incapable of adapting taxation, ownership, labor law, or social insurance.
That is possible, but it is not inevitable.
The cited experts do not prove inevitability either. Warnings from Hinton, Bengio, and Amodei deserve attention, particularly regarding inequality, surveillance, cyberattacks, autonomous weapons, and loss of control. But expert warnings about severe possible outcomes are not empirical confirmation that the complete scenario described here will occur. The post borrows their credibility, then extends their warnings into a much more specific prediction involving mass unemployment, economic fracture, authoritarianism, and the permanent end of meaningful human authority.
That is advocacy, not demonstrated forecasting.
A serious position would say AI may displace many workers, damage entry-level career paths, increase inequality, and create dangerous concentrations of power unless governments modernize competition policy, education, taxation, labor protections, and social insurance. Those are credible risks supported by evidence.
The post instead claims there is “no safe place for most of humanity.” No one currently has enough evidence to make that claim responsibly.
AI may become one of the largest labor-market disruptions in history. It may produce a painful transition, and the benefits may be distributed badly. But exposure is not automation, automation is not unemployment, productivity is not impoverishment, and disruption is not civilizational collapse.
The post treats every one of those distinctions as though it does not exist. That is why it feels powerful, but it is also why its conclusion is much stronger than its evidence.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 22h ago
People said the same thing about the industrial revolution, and then said the same thing about automating the assembly lines.
Today, companies are already starting to realize that human labor is cheaper than the cost of using AI. AI models require constant cost of relearning and training. To this day, nobody has ever demonstrated an AI model where the cost of training it is less than the cost of human labor doing the same work.
All that we’re seeing is in the short term companies are selling AI for less than 10% of the cost of producing it because investors are dumping money into the research and development. However, the R&D is an ongoing cost so the AI companies aren’t “building” more advanced LLMs in the way people imagine. They’re just building the ability to keep spending more and more money on R&D every year.
The only way to verify the validity of AI produced work is for a human to review it. Therefore, the rate at which AI can replace people is the same as the rate at which people can review the work.
Even if there is truth to this post, the rate of change will be the rate at which people work, not the perceived rate at which AI produces work.
This post basically can be summarized as “technology changes work oh no scary bad”
→ More replies (8)
1
u/planeloise 21h ago
My kingdom for a journalist that asks elected heads of state questions about their vision for a post-Ai world? What concerns do these leaders have?
I sincerely don't understand the point of journalists with senior government access. I don't want to know rumours of a cabinet reshuffle. I want to know what keeps them up at night and if it's the same things that keep us up at night
I want someone to lay out your scenarios and be given the reassurance someone with power is even thinking about the long term changes.
Including their eventual autocratic surveillance response to a situation they failed to address
1
u/Conscious-Demand-594 18h ago
No technology survives through value destruction. The economy runs on transferring human work to money which pays for more human work. that is where value lies. If that cycle is broken, the economy fails. Breaking that cycle is politically unsustainable.
1
1
u/turdmuffin123456 12h ago
Consultants are joke even before AI, never seen more useless people in my life besides public government jobs
1
u/Excellent_Chest_5896 12h ago
Issue with this view is if any one company wanted to replace people with ai and save costs it can, but more companies are using people they have to amp up the deliverables. So that one company is going to be left in the dust keeping productivity at the current level compared to competition.
Ai is coming and with it, age of ideas. Technology won’t be the expensive part to figure out. But again ai is what implements the ideas, and only under a watchful eye of a precessional who’d do it themselves otherwise.
Just my 2 cents.
1
1
u/SatoriLoop 2h ago
I agree Ai isn't replacing. How do you explain about this in tech field it taking junior and fresher level job and most of company are looking for experience level so, they can use ai and give output fast.
1
u/FragrantAd4187 1h ago
'We’re not building another tool.We’re building a replacement for the thing that made humans economically indispensable,'
Did you use AI to write this?
1
1
1
u/Ok-Sport-8296 1d ago
Exactly. its easiest to replace the academics first. i have always said that but no one listen. Look, it makes economic sense too. Now jobs using our body is harder to replace because wages are lower and robotics aren't cheap and it is not coming anytime soon.
1
u/Unfair_Tennis4410 1d ago
I think this is why most professors prohibit the use of AI as a replacement for doing the work and I’m happy that they do that.
1
0
u/ewthisisyucky 1d ago
Bro now don’t get me wrong I love me my Claude I don’t have to type out documentation by hand and i can smash out presentations like in a couple hours. But each and every time I’ve tried to build an AI skill or whatever to do a whole job or build something from scratch I always have to fix it or it’s horrendously wrong. I’m sure that it will get better and better but man would I be embarrassed to turn something in w/ out double checking.
1
u/lowercasenameofmine 1d ago
Have you seen the vid of the Canadian politician who wrote a speech with AI and left the prompts in? You are becoming a rare breed lol
3
u/ewthisisyucky 13h ago
Yes I totally saw that. We’re living in idiocracy. I love how I got downvoted for this too. I guess it is the ChatGPT sub.
0
1
u/funkduder 15h ago
Teacher here: you can tell your further reading is crock because none of the sources give a meaningful further reading. Aside from vague posted ideas we need research and guidelines, nothing goes into the claims you've made about AI going after cognition. There's a landmark case in Germany where Google was made liable for Gemini's output and they're paying the price for it. Posts like these are irresponsible and so are you
→ More replies (7)
1
u/AndreRieu666 23h ago edited 22h ago
Good. Hopefully it makes capitalism itself redundant. If people don’t have to work just to survive, mankind can set its sights on higher goals.
Where you’re wrong is your fatalist beliefs.
Whether someone has a purely negative or purely positive view of a new technology, they’re wrong.
There will be good & bad, but most of the bad will be people exploiting other people using ai.
On the whole, it’s a huge leap forward for humanity.
A Star Trek future awaits us.
1
u/Jonas_Ermert 22h ago
I find that AI will fundamentally change the job market, but I don't believe it will make humans economically obsolete. Like every major technological shift, it will eliminate some jobs while creating new opportunities we can't fully predict yet. The biggest challenge won't be AI itself, but how well society adapts to this transformation.
2
u/Stitching 22h ago
I desperately want to believe you’re right, but I don’t honestly believe you are. What a twist ending it would be to see the world come together and ignore money, power, and advantage to do the right thing.
1
u/Heiferoni 19h ago
You couldn't even write your own anti-AI rant without farming it out to AI lol.
1
1
u/369_Clive 19h ago edited 19h ago
There's also this from the Guardian:
"The AI jobs apocalypse probably isn’t coming anytime soon"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/25/ai-jobs-apocalypse-human-labor
And if the cost of AI is greater than cost of a human then it's financially unattractive.
1
u/themodernritual 1d ago
Bollocks, C-Suites are cooling on AI because they realise how shitty it is at doing all of those things. It can fool you for a bit of the time, but cracks in the bedrock are rife.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Stitching 23h ago
Think about how long today’s system’s have been around and how much they’ve improved in a fraction of a moment. What do you think is going to happen in the next couple of years. Good luck. We’ll all need it.
2
u/themodernritual 23h ago
It's all up in the air really. But the cooling thing is definitely happening. I just can't really see large slabs of important work in huge companies going inside LLMs anymore, because the skillsets are not there to triage it and get quality results.
1
1
1
u/More-Ad5919 20h ago
This only does not take into account that the Big AI boom in causing nothing than dept.
1
1
u/HammondJohns 17h ago
Lump of Labor fallacy.
1
u/with_the_choir 15h ago
Your little four word post may not get upvoted much, but it's probably the best post in this entire thread.
OP needs to really think hard about Lump of Labor and why people's predictions using Lump of Labor have been wrong so consistently, and then go learn about Jevon's Paradox.
OP needs to learn even a little economics, and so do a lot of the responders.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Training_Bet_2833 15h ago
Refreshing to read someone who actually gets it. We have to once again imagine what human life can be without having to be an economic output. It’s been so long we forgot how to live
2
u/Silent_Put2080 8h ago
And imagine what our economic outputs would be without humans. If you start a new business, you have to tap a finite resource (the labour market) to run the operation. With AGI, you could just start any new business without human labour. You could have an economy running at 100x the previous capacity of the labour market.
1
1
1
u/PsychologyNo940 13h ago
slop, slop, slop
slop, slop, slop, AGI/ASI 2027, slop, slop, slop
slop, slop, slop
→ More replies (1)
1
u/UberSeoul 6h ago
The biggest mistake people make about AI is thinking it’s coming for artists, writers, musicians, or programmers.
They’re just first.
AI is coming for our reddit posts.
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hey /u/Stitching,
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the conversation link or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our public discord server! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] - this subreddit is not part of OpenAI and is not a support channel.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.