Working in big tech and the writing on the wall for our kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll believe it when I see it.

AI still hallucinates like crazy and needs a lot of prompt engineering and training to do anything useful.

The notion that AI can replace “the vast majority of what we do in white collar jobs” is kind of laughable.

Yes, it will replace some things.

But it is very unlikely to replace the “vast majority” of people.

You're wrong. Google anything about this and read. This is a real thing that is happening.

Ok, let’s take one example.

Explain to me how AI will replace lawyers.

I’m not talking about AI being incorporated into legal workflows.

I mean a world in which we have no lawyers because AI is doing all legal work.

Will an AI agent represent a client in court?

What about doctors? Professors?

Will kids enter a classroom and be taught by an AI agent?

No of course not all of them, but it will greatly reduce the numbers. In law, many small claims will definitely be handled by AI - that is already being tried in arbitration and it is very effective. That will expand, and eventually only the most complex cases will be tried before a jury and you won’t need many people for that. Same in medicine - you will certainly still need nurses and carers, and you will need some doctors, but many aspects of care/surgery/diagnosis will be able to be handled even more effectively by AI. Again, already happening to a significant degree in radiography, in surgery, and in patient admin.
There will still be jobs in these fields but there will not be as many. And the part that makes it different to anything the world has seen before is that these changes are happening across literally all industries at the same time. So it’s not like people in one industry can retrain and pivot to another because every industry is facing the same situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suck on it, dad. Turns out being a horse girl was smart all along because you can't replace that with AI and billionaires will always have horses and need staff for them!

Best comment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll believe it when I see it.

AI still hallucinates like crazy and needs a lot of prompt engineering and training to do anything useful.

The notion that AI can replace “the vast majority of what we do in white collar jobs” is kind of laughable.

Yes, it will replace some things.

But it is very unlikely to replace the “vast majority” of people.

You're wrong. Google anything about this and read. This is a real thing that is happening.

Ok, let’s take one example.

Explain to me how AI will replace lawyers.

I’m not talking about AI being incorporated into legal workflows.

I mean a world in which we have no lawyers because AI is doing all legal work.

Will an AI agent represent a client in court?

What about doctors? Professors?

Will kids enter a classroom and be taught by an AI agent?

AI is not going to release all layers and doctors etc. but it’s going to greatly diminish the numbers of them.

Instead of 5 attorneys writing briefs you have AI write 5 briefs and then 1 attorney fact/law check it. Also while there are hallucinations now, exponential learning means AI will improve faster than we can adapt.

You will still have doctors, but they will be using AI to scour your treatment records and medical journals plus do much of your charting. Insurance companies will now expect doctors to see more patients more quickly. And this is already happening with PE getting into owning medical practices.

There are going to be fewer a fewer paths for normal people to build wealth and have professional careers.

I am a first gen college grad turned lawyer. My dad moved from blue collar to managerial blue collar work and my mom was a SAHM. I became a lawyer. I had hoped my kids will have a similar income and lifestyle as me, so I find it depressing that just 1 generation later they are now being expected to go into blue collar work again. The ownership class is going to keep us laboring for them as cheaply as they can and supplement heavily with AI unless we start legislating something soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OP, is this realization just now hitting you lol? I had this convo with my colleagues 5 years ago.

I work in big tech and have no concerns about my kids. DH and I need to be able to hold on for 10 years to retire, I am nervous about that.

My kids are young but all interested in blue collar jobs that exist in the real world, not just the digital world. They will be fine.

I work in big tech and feel the same way!

[Anonymous]

Sorry typing too quickly and didn’t proofread -it won’t “replace all lawyers …”

[Anonymous]

Isn't it a lot of the AI-booster tech-bro types who are also concerned about the drop in birthrate and wanting policies to make women have more kids? Why do they care about declining birthrates if they don't want people to have jobs? Sounds like not having kids is the smart decision if that really is the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you the same poster who keeps posting this. Tech is changing as will jobs.

DP - It does seem like one person hammering this point now, but I think it's mostly in reaction to some popular articles just posted. Magically everyone is having the same realization at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it a lot of the AI-booster tech-bro types who are also concerned about the drop in birthrate and wanting policies to make women have more kids? Why do they care about declining birthrates if they don't want people to have jobs? Sounds like not having kids is the smart decision if that really is the future.

They want women to have THEIR kids because they are superior to everyone else. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suck on it, dad. Turns out being a horse girl was smart all along because you can't replace that with AI and billionaires will always have horses and need staff for them!

Horses are just expensive toys. They exist for no other reason besides that.

When people lack the disposable income to throw at expensive toys like horses, there will be an enormous reduction in their numbers, and there will be far fewer staff needed for the remaining ones.

Your lack of critical thinking thinking is dumbfounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Universal basic income.
Remember that dude, A Yang and his MATH campaign?

Where is UBI coming from? If no one is working, no one is paying taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll believe it when I see it.

AI still hallucinates like crazy and needs a lot of prompt engineering and training to do anything useful.

The notion that AI can replace “the vast majority of what we do in white collar jobs” is kind of laughable.

Yes, it will replace some things.

But it is very unlikely to replace the “vast majority” of people.

You're wrong. Google anything about this and read. This is a real thing that is happening.

Ok, let’s take one example.

Explain to me how AI will replace lawyers.

I’m not talking about AI being incorporated into legal workflows.

I mean a world in which we have no lawyers because AI is doing all legal work.

Will an AI agent represent a client in court?

What about doctors? Professors?

Will kids enter a classroom and be taught by an AI agent?

AI is not going to release all layers and doctors etc. but it’s going to greatly diminish the numbers of them.

Instead of 5 attorneys writing briefs you have AI write 5 briefs and then 1 attorney fact/law check it. Also while there are hallucinations now, exponential learning means AI will improve faster than we can adapt.

You will still have doctors, but they will be using AI to scour your treatment records and medical journals plus do much of your charting. Insurance companies will now expect doctors to see more patients more quickly. And this is already happening with PE getting into owning medical practices.

There are going to be fewer a fewer paths for normal people to build wealth and have professional careers.

I am a first gen college grad turned lawyer. My dad moved from blue collar to managerial blue collar work and my mom was a SAHM. I became a lawyer. I had hoped my kids will have a similar income and lifestyle as me, so I find it depressing that just 1 generation later they are now being expected to go into blue collar work again. The ownership class is going to keep us laboring for them as cheaply as they can and supplement heavily with AI unless we start legislating something soon.

This is such a great example of how the tech guys don't understand other fields that aren't structured like tech and don't scale like tech.

Law is not predominantly brief writing, and you do not write a brief (or anything else) in a closed box. Yes, there will be changes and probably efficiencies with new tech, just as email and word processing replaced most courier services and typing pools. But you will not see significantly fewer lawyers, sorry.

And, I don't think law is special in that way. I think most industries are dissimilar to tech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll believe it when I see it.

AI still hallucinates like crazy and needs a lot of prompt engineering and training to do anything useful.

The notion that AI can replace “the vast majority of what we do in white collar jobs” is kind of laughable.

Yes, it will replace some things.

But it is very unlikely to replace the “vast majority” of people.

You're wrong. Google anything about this and read. This is a real thing that is happening.

Ok, let’s take one example.

Explain to me how AI will replace lawyers.

I’m not talking about AI being incorporated into legal workflows.

I mean a world in which we have no lawyers because AI is doing all legal work.

Will an AI agent represent a client in court?

What about doctors? Professors?

Will kids enter a classroom and be taught by an AI agent?

AI is not going to release all layers and doctors etc. but it’s going to greatly diminish the numbers of them.

Instead of 5 attorneys writing briefs you have AI write 5 briefs and then 1 attorney fact/law check it. Also while there are hallucinations now, exponential learning means AI will improve faster than we can adapt.

You will still have doctors, but they will be using AI to scour your treatment records and medical journals plus do much of your charting. Insurance companies will now expect doctors to see more patients more quickly. And this is already happening with PE getting into owning medical practices.

There are going to be fewer a fewer paths for normal people to build wealth and have professional careers.

I am a first gen college grad turned lawyer. My dad moved from blue collar to managerial blue collar work and my mom was a SAHM. I became a lawyer. I had hoped my kids will have a similar income and lifestyle as me, so I find it depressing that just 1 generation later they are now being expected to go into blue collar work again. The ownership class is going to keep us laboring for them as cheaply as they can and supplement heavily with AI unless we start legislating something soon.

This is such a great example of how the tech guys don't understand other fields that aren't structured like tech and don't scale like tech.

Law is not predominantly brief writing, and you do not write a brief (or anything else) in a closed box. Yes, there will be changes and probably efficiencies with new tech, just as email and word processing replaced most courier services and typing pools. But you will not see significantly fewer lawyers, sorry.

And, I don't think law is special in that way. I think most industries are dissimilar to tech.

I think it is more similar than you think. In my company, we’ve reduced headcount of lawyers because we don’t need as many. The number isn’t significant in my company (maybe reduction of 5 people right now), but multiply across companies, and parts of the company (it’s definitely not just legal where this is happening) and it will have a meaningful impact on jobs

[Anonymous]

I predict an anti-tech revolution. People already hate tech bros and are protesting too much tech for kids in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suck on it, dad. Turns out being a horse girl was smart all along because you can't replace that with AI and billionaires will always have horses and need staff for them!

Horses are just expensive toys. They exist for no other reason besides that.

When people lack the disposable income to throw at expensive toys like horses, there will be an enormous reduction in their numbers, and there will be far fewer staff needed for the remaining ones.

Your lack of critical thinking thinking is dumbfounding.

No, PP's thinking is correct. Horse girl will have the same 35k/year+room+board job she has now. The wealthy are not going to lose anything in the future and will have plenty of disposable income.

You seem to think that horse-owning people are going to be in the same boat as you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suck on it, dad. Turns out being a horse girl was smart all along because you can't replace that with AI and billionaires will always have horses and need staff for them!

Westworld and blade runner replaced animals