Anonymous wrote:Restaurants will still need chefs, hostesses, bartenders, plus waiters and waitresses.

Could growth in the restaurant sector replace the jobs lost to ai ?

Anonymous wrote:It will eventually take someone or multiple people who love humanity to altruistically create a society where people are guaranteed dignity and resources despite not working.

People will always have something to do. Our physical spaces need curation, cleaning and adapting at least. But will we always have money-making things to do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I side-eye everyone - particularly those in business and government - that seems so excited at AI taking over jobs.

What is the plan for this huge swath of out of work people? Are they planning for this? Or they’re just trying to scare people with the potential of this happening?

I don’t understand the AI end game, at all.

Listen to this podcast. Diary of a ceo, latest episode on Ai Agents. It’s not for the faint of heart. Worst case scenario- not having a job will be the least of our worries.

I’m telling you, if it’s important enough for the pope to mention it, then it’s more than just ‘write a thank you email’ technology.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-diary-of-a-ceo-with-steven-bartlett/id1291423644?i=1000708064948

Anonymous wrote:Restaurants will still need chefs, hostesses, bartenders, plus waiters and waitresses.

Could growth in the restaurant sector replace the jobs lost to ai ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s clear we need to create jobs and do it quickly.

Maybe something like the 1930s WPA, or other New Deal agencies are what we need right now? Doesn’t our infrastructure need rebuilding at the moment too?

So, I'll be contrarian and suggest that it's going to take longer than people think for AI to really replace people. Right now, it's good at summarizing information, but it can't really go beyond that with the level of reliability you need in many fields.

I know business will fight this solution, but I think we should make it illegal to fire more than X% of your workforce a year due to AI. And we should all 100% fight it being used in schools as part of formal learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s clear we need to create jobs and do it quickly.

Maybe something like the 1930s WPA, or other New Deal agencies are what we need right now? Doesn’t our infrastructure need rebuilding at the moment too?

So, I'll be contrarian and suggest that it's going to take longer than people think for AI to really replace people. Right now, it's good at summarizing information, but it can't really go beyond that with the level of reliability you need in many fields.

I know business will fight this solution, but I think we should make it illegal to fire more than X% of your workforce a year due to AI. And we should all 100% fight it being used in schools as part of formal learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass job loss due to automation has been predicted since the industrial revolution. It hasn't happened yet. Jobs have changed, but not gone away. This seems to be the likely pattern that will be repeated in the coming decades.

+1 AI will create new jobs.

This argument sounds ridiculous if you make it about anything other the humans. Did horse employment ever recover after the invention of cars and trains? No, it did not, the utility of horses declined substantially. There is no cosmic rule of the universe that dictates that automation will create enough new jobs to offset job losses.

Bad analogy. Horses were a tool. Horses didn't decide they needed jobs or go looking for them. Also the car manufacturing, retailing, and servicing industries have created lots of jobs, including the golden age of high-paid U.S. manufacturing work with real fringe benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I side-eye everyone - particularly those in business and government - that seems so excited at AI taking over jobs.

What is the plan for this huge swath of out of work people? Are they planning for this? Or they’re just trying to scare people with the potential of this happening?

I don’t understand the AI end game, at all.

It’s like the globalization and offshoring of industry in the 1990th.
This time on steroids.

Anonymous wrote:This is why I side-eye everyone - particularly those in business and government - that seems so excited at AI taking over jobs.

What is the plan for this huge swath of out of work people? Are they planning for this? Or they’re just trying to scare people with the potential of this happening?

I don’t understand the AI end game, at all.

Anonymous wrote:It’s clear we need to create jobs and do it quickly.

Maybe something like the 1930s WPA, or other New Deal agencies are what we need right now? Doesn’t our infrastructure need rebuilding at the moment too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass job loss due to automation has been predicted since the industrial revolution. It hasn't happened yet. Jobs have changed, but not gone away. This seems to be the likely pattern that will be repeated in the coming decades.

+1 AI will create new jobs.

This argument sounds ridiculous if you make it about anything other the humans. Did horse employment ever recover after the invention of cars and trains? No, it did not, the utility of horses declined substantially. There is no cosmic rule of the universe that dictates that automation will create enough new jobs to offset job losses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem AI is trying to solve is "I don't want to pay people" and the result is a less satisfactory product than if you just paid the people who already do the jobs.

Think about call centers - does anybody want an AI chat bot to resolve a customer service problem? No, it's useless. Does anybody want to call an offshore call center? Also no, though it's usually better than AI. But people love the US-based hotlines and higher-end bank service lines. You have to pay for a good customer service experience, there is no way around that.

I think this line of thought does not recognize the significant improvements in AI. Soon you won't know whether you are talking to a person on a script or to a bot.

It was revealed recently that Reddit had thousands of A.I. bots participating there posing as regular humans, and nobody knew until the study went public. Not even the mods there knew supposedly.

Those weren't conversations. They were AI posts (prompts) that real people responded to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem AI is trying to solve is "I don't want to pay people" and the result is a less satisfactory product than if you just paid the people who already do the jobs.

Think about call centers - does anybody want an AI chat bot to resolve a customer service problem? No, it's useless. Does anybody want to call an offshore call center? Also no, though it's usually better than AI. But people love the US-based hotlines and higher-end bank service lines. You have to pay for a good customer service experience, there is no way around that.

I think this line of thought does not recognize the significant improvements in AI. Soon you won't know whether you are talking to a person on a script or to a bot.

It was revealed recently that Reddit had thousands of A.I. bots participating there posing as regular humans, and nobody knew until the study went public. Not even the mods there knew supposedly.