Here in the USA, you have to be afraid for your job these days. Layoffs are rampant everywhere due to outsourcing, and now we have AI on the horizon promising to make things more efficient, but we really know what it is actually going to be used for. They want automate out everything. People packaging up goods for shipping, white collar jobs like analytics, business intelligence, customer service, chat support. Any sort of job that takes a low or moderate amount of effort or intellectual ability is threatened by AI. But once AI takes all these jobs away and shrinks the amount of labor required, what are all these people going to do for work? It’s not like you can train someone who’s a business intelligence engineer easily to go do something else like HVAC, or be a nurse. So you have the entire tech industry basically folding in on itself trying to win the rat race and get the few remaining jobs left over…

But it should be pretty obvious that you can’t run an entire society with no jobs. Because then people can’t buy groceries, groceries don’t sell so grocery stores start hurting and then they can’t afford to employ cashiers and stockers, and the entire thing starts crumbling. This is the future of AI, basically. The more we automate, the less people can do, so they don’t have jobs and no income, not able to survive…

Like, how long until we realize how detrimental AI is to society? 10 years? 15?

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is AI really only detrimental to society? We’re in the initial stages where they promise the world in order to get investors attention. But once the investors realize what it’s actually capable of they’ll have to focus on what it’s actually capable of.

    I think sometime next year we’ll have a crash, and all the companies pushing AI will be forced to either focus on quality, or find the next thing to push.

  • otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    People had the same fears about cars, the internet, computers, telephones, the printing press, and even just books and reading/writing.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Most importantly “AI” doesn’t exist.

    But it’s also worth nothing that absolutism is almost never helpful. I don’t think data, statistics, computers, etc. are inherently evil technologies. It’s the usual problem of how capitalism directs research and development towards violent control instead of liberation.

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      General Artificial Intelligence doesn’t exist - we don’t have HAL9000 or Terminator or Cortana yet.

      But up to that point, and almost certainly even past it, the AI effect means the more sophisticated AI things become, the more people think “well </insert ai thing/> isn’t actually intelligent or an AI”.
      As Larry Tesler says: “AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet.”

  • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What do you think happened to building full of engineers designing plans and making stress load calculations? What do you think happened to switchboard operators?

  • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think social media provides a good reference to start speculating an answer to your question.

    • DuckWrangler9000@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      My theory is that it will never stop making money because they want less people in society in general, it’s a way of trying to kill people off without actually having to do it yourself. As the number of people shrinks due to poverty and being unable to feed themselves, basically mass homelessness, and only the elite few surviving, those elite few won’t have to do anything because they already had tons of money, and now AI can do all the hard work that they were too proud to do before. So I think it’ll always be profitable. Just not for everyone.

      • Viri4thus@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        What you’re saying makes no sense. People need to realise that those at the helm are actually as stupid or worse than the average joe. They are profoundly uneducated and just happened to be in the right social circles to reach power. This is especially true in the US. As for AI, someone thinks there’s money to be made from AI so it’s getting pumped. Same shit for crypto. What we really need is a French revolution in the US, but that will never happen because even the most destitute of US americans thinks they’re a millionaire who just happens to be on a low luck slump, so they will never revolt against the elite that “they are a part of”.

        • Rekall Incorporated@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I wouldn’t go that far, oligarchs (in the US or otherwise) are generally very intelligent, sophisticated (in the functional sense) and even hard working.

          This is not meant to be some sort of justification, they are clearly corrupt, deeply dishonest and extremely malicious. That doesn’t mean they should be underestimated or one should discount their capabilities.

          • elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            This is a good point. Intelligent sociopaths do exist. “stupid” and “evil” are not synonyms.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      With a couple niche exceptions, AI hasn’t started making money. What it has done is attract venture capital investment.

      Venture capitalists are driven by a fear of missing out on the next big thing. A billion dollar score pays for a thousand bad million dollar bets, and AI that lives up to the hype could be worth trillions. This is also why every existing tech company is scrambling to add an AI thing to its products even where it makes no sense.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    You may be in the younger side, or just not remember, but this happens almost every 20 years like clockwork.

    In the 80’s it was the PC and computers at large.

    In the 00’s it was robotic automation that was going to be the end of manual labor.

    Now it’s this.

    The sooner people realize that all of things are just about the small number of wealthy people who control resources making more money at the expense of the majority of all other humans, maybe something will get done. It’s been tried before in various movements with little to show for it, but maybe I’m just cynical.

    There will need to be a major shift in how economic flow works in order to support an existing or expanding population regardless.

  • enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Replace AI in your argument with industrial machinery, and you’ll get your answer. People have always had similar concerns about automation. There are some problems, but it isn’t with the technology itself.

    The first problem is the concentration of wealth. Societal automation efforts need to start to be viewed as something belonging to everyone, and the profits generated need to go back in to supporting society. This’ll need to be solved to move forward peacefully.

    The second problem is failure to deal with externalities. The true cost of automation needs to be accounted for from cradle to grave including all externalities. This means the pollution caused by LLM energy use needs to be a part of the cost of running the LLM, for example.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    People simultaneously seem scared of AI automating jobs, and of there being too many old people for the young people to look after as they’d be too busy with their jobs. Wouldn’t those cancel each other out?

    • DuckWrangler9000@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      there being too many old people for the young people to look after as they’d be too busy with their jobs

      When your entire society revolves around working for a salary or for getting paid, that’s why you can’t take care of the old people. Now suppose AI automates a lot of stuff and we have time for taking care of older people… How are we supposed to do that without jobs? That’s the problem

  • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    now we have AI on the horizon promising to make things more efficient

    sounds good

    but we really know what it is actually going to be used for

    Contradicts the first statement and the next statement

    They want automate out everything. People packaging up goods for shipping, white collar jobs like analytics, business intelligence, customer service, chat support. Any sort of job that takes a low or moderate amount of effort or intellectual ability is threatened by AI.

    OK you do know what they want to use it for.

    But once AI takes all these jobs away and shrinks the amount of labor required, what are all these people going to do for work? It’s not like you can train someone who’s a business intelligence engineer easily to go do something else like HVAC, or be a nurse.

    Highly untrainable people have always existed and are always the first to get replaced.

    But it should be pretty obvious that you can’t run an entire society with no jobs.

    Well not one based on capitalism.

    The more we automate, the less people can do, so they don’t have jobs and no income, not able to survive…

    Well the ones that can’t do research and can’t look up history maybe. AI is the new Robots, is the new assembly line is the new…

    You are just using the age old technology fear narrative.

    When Robots Take All of Our Jobs, Remember the Luddites (2017)

      • unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s already been going to the wrong people for decades now.

        The least drastic solution would be something like UBI, where a lot of people would be miserable, but at least will be able to put food on the table. (In case you’ve seen The Expanse series, I imagine that something like the part where Bobbie asks for directions on Earth).

        A more drastic solution would be to not tie the worth of people to the amount of work they do or the amount of wealth they have.

        • kubica@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t disagree with most things. But I don’t think the celebration of not having a job muddles a bit the point. I don’t see a viable future if everyone does the same.

          • unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I see you point; but not even 200 years ago the people couldn’t imagine most people working in other “industries” than agriculture.

            Historically, most people worked in agriculture. (I’m not sure of the percentage, but it was >80% IIRC, but we can take a low estimate at 50%).

            Nowadays less than 5% of the world population works in agriculture, due to increases in automation (machinery that can plow and harvest), and better understanding of the process (more efficient use of land).

            While some of that turned out to be bad for the environment (who knew biodiversity is good, actually?), it did free up most of the population to do other things.

            I hope it’s not “AI” that will automate the future (because of the huge energy costs to the environment), but automation more generally could help us free more time for passionate pursuits.

            Jobs like software engineer didn’t even exist a century ago, and who knows what kind of new jobs will be created in the next 100?

  • iii@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What is AI, according to you?

    It’s a marketing term, aimed to create a void. So I wonder what products you think fills this void.

    • elephantium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ugh, I hate that you’re right about this. It used to mean a topic of study in computer science. Now it means…I don’t even know what it’s supposed to mean.

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    For now, I work in AI.

    IMO, using AI to remove jobs is the business equivalent of the Darwin Award. No sane executive will look at AI and see job replacement. A dumb executive will look at AI and see more productivity gains. A smart executive will see AI as a way to improve tooling for workers that explicitly want to use AI.

    Sadly, as with most tech improvements, we’ll see lots of companies run by stupid people try to do stupid things with it. The best we can hope for is that there are opportunities for people to bail and find better job opportunities when their employer says “let’s fire HR and replace with GPT”, only to get absolutely brutalized by legal fees when their AI HR decides to fire someone for a protected reason, or refuses to fire a thief because they have a disability, or something that requires human intervention that doesn’t exist, or one of the hundreds of ways that it could go hilariously wrong.

    It happens all the time. I remember watching solid profitable tech companies pivoting to delivering large apps on the new iPhone app store because “it’s the future”, only to realise that spending two years to develop an office suite for the iPhone 4 was a fucking stupid idea in hindsight. I remember people firing web developers because WYSIWYG editors would mean that you could design and build a website in the same way you create a Word doc. Stupid execs will always do stupid shit, and the world will move on.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yup.

      Some guys I know who worked at a developer contracting house (that I briefly worked for as well) all lost their jobs over the course of a year or so, as the company started rapidly downsizing because “Copilot means we don’t need as many developers anymore, we can fill orders with a skeleton crew.”

      I’m excited to see that company fail for their bullshit.