Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Businesses Technology

Generative AI Set To Affect 300 Million Jobs Across Major Economies, Goldman Sachs Says (arstechnica.com) 114

The latest breakthroughs in artificial intelligence could lead to the automation of a quarter of the work done in the US and eurozone, according to research by Goldman Sachs. From a report: The investment bank said on Monday that "generative" AI systems such as ChatGPT, which can create content that is indistinguishable from human output, could spark a productivity boom that would eventually raise annual global gross domestic product by 7 percent over a 10-year period. But if the technology lived up to its promise, it would also bring "significant disruption" to the labor market, exposing the equivalent of 300 million full-time workers across big economies to automation, according to Joseph Briggs and Devesh Kodnani, the paper's authors. Lawyers and administrative staff would be among those at greatest risk of becoming redundant.

They calculate that roughly two-thirds of jobs in the US and Europe are exposed to some degree of AI automation, based on data on the tasks typically performed in thousands of occupations. Most people would see less than half of their workload automated and would probably continue in their jobs, with some of their time freed up for more productive activities. In the US, this should apply to 63 percent of the workforce, they calculated. A further 30 percent working in physical or outdoor jobs would be unaffected, although their work might be susceptible to other forms of automation. But about 7 percent of US workers are in jobs where at least half of their tasks could be done by generative AI and are vulnerable to replacement.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Generative AI Set To Affect 300 Million Jobs Across Major Economies, Goldman Sachs Says

Comments Filter:
  • ...Goldman Sachs announced that from tomorrow all their forecasts will be produced by a generative AI. The AI system will replace all humans working at the forecasts department.
    • by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

      Honestly, ChatGPT AI would probably make better financial market predictions that Goldman Sachs.

      • automobiles.
        pen and paper.
        hand held calculators.
        name 3 inventions that were to replace workers.
        but.
        when it became cheap enough.
        was then imposed on workers.
        giving workers.
        more work

        • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @04:11PM (#63407110)
          Wait... which workers were the automobiles supposed to replace? The guys that carried other people around on their backs? Or are you calling horses "workers"? The fact is, automobiles are just carriages using a different source of horsepower -- they're not as revolutionary as you think.
          • by hazem ( 472289 )

            The fact is, automobiles are just carriages using a different source of horsepower -- they're not as revolutionary as you think.

            But the transition is still pretty disruptive. Entire industries around making horse-power available ubiquitously were pretty rapidly made much less relevant. Maybe the net number of jobs were the same but it's not certain that a farrier and a hay farmer could readily switch to being an auto mechanic.

          • simple.
            1 horse does the work of 6 men
            when the yoke for horses was invented.
            the romans set free and or banished 5 slaves per horse

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          A couple of points, there was usually a delay as automation changed the job market, with the original industrial revolution causing high unemployment for a couple of generations before enough new jobs appeared to fix things. Also there was a new world for the unemployed to go to and do things like homestead.
          The other thing is employment never became full again. Used to be that almost everyone worked, you started working at 4-5 years old and basically worked till death. The wave of automation a 100-140 years

    • by dbialac ( 320955 )
      Don't tell me that the Nigerian princes be replaced, too! How will they ever leave their refugee camps now?
  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @01:54PM (#63406694)

    ...someone was honest and highlighted the actual impact of AI on human employment. I was really getting tired of ignorant humans treating this like yet another technical revolution that might put a few humans out of work with "go get an education" as the perpetual excuse to restoring self-worth and value in society.

    Greed funding AI doesn't seek to make humans temporarily unemployed. It seeks to make humans permanently unemployable. In favor of a 24/7 employee that never complains about needing sleep, health insurance, or vacations. Deny it all you want, but deep down you already know how Greed operates; the same as it has for thousands of years.

    No, your Governments don't have an answer for this, nor do they really give a shit. Many current leaders will be dead and gone long before their votes and actions bring forth permanent consequence. We're creating intelligence this time. Humans really have no fucking idea how fast this will all happen. You're no longer going to be the smartest thing in the room soon. Good luck predicting it, and you meatsacks better maintain control over that power cord.

    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      I've said it before, but the only "jobs" lost will be "cog-in-the-machine" jobs. You were always replaceable, whining about Stable Diffusion or Midjourney just proves how much you don't value your own skill.

      More jobs will be created in the long run, because people won't have to pay for artists that are unavailable already. (Like if you wanted to get started in virtual streaming, you have to pay around $5000 for a competitively featured model) Those people at the top, making big money? Will keep making big m

      • by nasch ( 598556 )

        All you have to do right now to be better than AI art generators is to have some general idea of composition and creativity.

        Yes. Right now. It's going to keep getting better very very quickly, much faster than we as a society are prepared for.

        • Not only that, but it can already do it at speeds that no humans could ever dream to match. There is a revolution coming, the concept of money is going to be stretched to its limits before it breaks.

          • Bollocks.

            There will be idiots that believe that there are wide-spread jobs for LLMs, but their training is suspect, their results are suspect, because their origins and models are suspect.

            And some will use them, get laughable results beyond the fallacies that have already become flatulence news, become deeply embarrassed for their time waste, and move on.

            Yeah, self-driving cars by 2022! This is about sucking in VC money to do modeling. Few people will be replaced, and what you see as interactive bullshit ge

            • by nasch ( 598556 )

              When AI is going to start taking over jobs at scale is not clear, but it's going to happen. 30 years? Maybe. 100 years? I would be surprised if it took that long. The only question is whether we'll prepare for it in a way that prevents societal collapse. Since such things tend to improve rapidly and sometimes in sudden spurts, it's not looking too good.

              • You give too much credit to bad software.

                People also evolve. And make mistakes.

                LLM isn't going to fix your toilet. It won't rescue a drowning youngster in a pool. It might know when to flip a hamburger.

                Maybe it can harvest almonds, with help. Or tell you when that avocado is ripe. It's up to you to eat the avocado.

                Goldman Sachs is full of mirth, waiting to see where it's next trillion is coming from, and suddenly, the sky is falling. There are many jobs that Caterpillar has learned to take over. This is ano

                • by nasch ( 598556 )

                  You give too much credit to bad software.

                  Not at all. I'm talking the really really good software in the future.

                  LLM isn't going to fix your toilet.

                  The physical capabilities of robots will continue to improve too, though likely at a slower pace.

                  Could it go out of control?

                  I'm not worried about that, I'm worried about what happens when computers and robots can do nearly everything a human can do and just as well or better. There is no room for "oh other jobs will be created" at that point because you know what's going to do those other new jobs? Robots. Because they can, and they'll be cheaper.

                  My point is that people have learned to take such developments in stride

                  Such a develop

                  • Robots can't even sweep a rug. Self-driving automata is an oxymoron.

                    Over many years things will improve, incrementally, in fits and spurts. Regulations will arise. Science fiction dystopia will continue to evolve, filling social media addicts with visions of hell, and VCs with visions of economic grandeur.

                    I have implied that none of the future possibilities is impossible, so much as the hype today is largely just that. Goldman Sachs. VC with visions of grandeur and wealth. Will that wealth trickle down?

                    Adap

                    • by nasch ( 598556 )

                      Will that wealth trickle down?

                      Indeed, that is the question.

                      what more could go wrong?

                      What you describe is happening with relatively low unemployment. Unemployment in the Great Depression was, what, 25% or something? What happens if it's 50%, or 80%? Hopefully this will happen slowly enough that we can figure out a different system than "have a job or starve on the streets". If it doesn't, it will make homeless camps look like a child's birthday party.

                    • You project numbers just like an AI response, pulled from an unprovable place that diminishes the value of your response.

                      Indeed no one can predict this, ultimately, but Goldman Sachs (remember the first point?) is trying to suck the air/money out of the discussion. My attempt was a reality check. Reality reeks of facts.

                      The fact is that it's all hype right now, with some charming (said with sarcastic venom) candidates.

                      Blah.

                    • by nasch ( 598556 )

                      Indeed no one can predict this, ultimately

                      It's really easy to predict based on a simple assumption. Do you assume that progress in these areas will halt at some point, or that it will continue more or less indefinitely? If the latter, then eventually robots and software will have superior performance to humans at all tasks. And I have not heard of any plausible mechanism by which the former assumption could be correct.

                    • Foisting a prediction where the assumptions are faulty from inception doesn't work.

                      Today's AI is primitive in the extreme. It tries to communicate, which delights people. It's based on false information, cannot show proof, and is not re-trained. It's faulty by definition.

                      Extrapolating based on a false premise is itself a false premise.

                      See various fallacious arguments to understand the problem.

                    • by nasch ( 598556 )

                      Foisting a prediction where the assumptions are faulty from inception doesn't work.

                      The assumptions that it either will or will not continue improving are both faulty?

            • their training is suspect, their results are suspect, because their origins and models are suspect.

              Even if that was true, it's irrelevant. Those critiques may apply to current LLMs, but even granting they're true, it's a fallacy to apply them to all possible LLMs.

              The important part, the technology itself, is not suspect. Using the technology, other LLMs can be trained using some open and auditable process, with public origins. At which point their results would stop being suspect, and your complaints disappear into thin air.

              In the end, if you don't trust the LLM, you can always verify the results.You can

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • People are using text generators to come up with ideas — you can simulate creativity by asking for a bunch of options, then asking for each of them to be fleshed out in multiple ways, and picking the good ones. You can even crowdsource the selection process on social media, there are tons of groups which can be used that way.

      • An AI Can Not Read Your Mind. It understands nothing.

        AI doesn't have to read your mind. It's rather busy replacing it. And you're also talking about today's AI. Not tomorrows. Has nothing to do with "skill" other than your human inability to work 24 hours a day.

        Still not quite getting it, I see. Paralegal work is being replaced by AI these days, so not just the cheap "cogs" being assimilated. Sure more jobs will be created. For AI and automation to consume, not humans. Why the hell would Greed even consider hiring those pain in the ass meatsacks when a

        • by narcc ( 412956 )
          I didn't realize that it was okay for paralegals to produce random nonsense.
          • I didn't realize that it was okay for paralegals to produce random nonsense.

            Paralegal grunt work is often sifting through case law history to find nuggets of information that can be (ab)used to establish precedent.

            And the four most expensive words in the history of humanity will forever be I told you so. All the human arguments in the world won't save you when you're reduced to nothing more than a target or a battery. We turned 1984 into an instruction manual. Greed is a disease, and we still like being infected by it no matter how much we repeat the worst of history.

            • by narcc ( 412956 )
              Not that I disagree with a lot of that, but my point was that AI thingies are astonishingly bad at that exact sort of work. They have this unfortunate tendency to fabricate things like citations. I can't imagine a judge being very happy about being handed a brief that is essentially legal fiction.
              • Not that I disagree with a lot of that, but my point was that AI thingies are astonishingly bad at that exact sort of work. They have this unfortunate tendency to fabricate things like citations.

                When AI is being used to simply search through existing case law (a LOT of it, in which one human typing and searching is not efficient enough), I'm not sure I understand the risk of AI literally manufacturing or fabricating evidence. Is that risk present today with paralegal work, outside of someone being corrupt?

                I can't imagine a judge being very happy about being handed a brief that is essentially legal fiction.

                Given that almost all judges previously worked for what we call a legal system today (as opposed to a justice system), I really don't know what to feel when it comes to making judges "happy". Th

                • by narcc ( 412956 )
                  I'd like to know what you think "AI" would add to search.
                  • I'd like to know what you think "AI" would add to search.

                    In a nutshell? Efficiency and cost. Why are millions using their voice to communicate on digital paper and transmit electronically in seconds instead of carrying around a notepad, pen, and a book of stamps? Same reason.

                    Instruct AI well enough, and you've got a room full of humans banging on keyboards. Only AI is gonna do that far faster and cheaper, and work 24/7. Remember AI is meant to take your input and learn how to do it even better than your brain can even imagine. And your brain needs that silly e

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      I think you're operating on a faulty set of assumptions. If you imagine using something like ChatGPT as a search (which I suspect is the case), training it on volumes of case law, then understand that there is a very real possibility that it will output text and citations that aren't real. There are lots of other approaches to search that are just as fast, if not faster, and far more reliable.

                      Instruct AI well enough,

                      'Instruct' can mean a lot of different things, depending on the kind of model you're using. There is no guarantee

    • Greed funding AI doesn't seek to make humans temporarily unemployed. It seeks to make humans permanently unemployable.

      The same thing has been said about all major technical revolutions: machines were going to make workers obsolete, computers were going to make secretaries obsolete etc. Instead, what happens is that new inventions massively multiply the work that a single human can do leading to new, but often very different jobs.

      It's always easier to see how a particular technical innovation will disrupt existing jobs than it is to see the new jobs that it will create and often those new jobs don't become obvious until

      • Greed funding AI doesn't seek to make humans temporarily unemployed. It seeks to make humans permanently unemployable.

        The same thing has been said about all major technical revolutions: machines were going to make workers obsolete, computers were going to make secretaries obsolete etc. Instead, what happens is that new inventions massively multiply the work that a single human can do leading to new, but often very different jobs. It's always easier to see how a particular technical innovation will disrupt existing jobs than it is to see the new jobs that it will create and often those new jobs don't become obvious until we start deploying the new technology and see where humans are needed. So while I agree that it is hard to see where the people displaced by the apparently approaching AI revolution will get employed I think it extremely unlikely that there will be no employment for them.

        AI is looking to replace the human mind. That is what differentiates this revolution from any other. Argue about the speed of deployment all you want, but the end goal remains the same, and that product can and will improve at a rate inconceivable to humans at some point.

        It's not hard to see what people will be "displaced" by this; everyone who uses their brain to secure employment. The only task humans will have left after that, is justifying their existence.

        • AI is looking to replace the human mind. That is what differentiates this revolution from any other.

          That's simply not true. A computer in the 19th and early 20th centuries was a job for mathematicians who were employed to perform complex calculations. They were completely replaced by machines that today we call computers. All the current AI technology does is extend the capabilities of computers to replace more "thinking" jobs. It will not replace all of them and the people whose jobs it does replace will transition to other employment, most likely the new types of jobs that AI will create.

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        There's usually a lag between the jobs going away and new ones appearing. IIRC, it was 3 generations for the original industrial revolution, though the colonies also gave the unemployed jobs.

    • by narcc ( 412956 )

      Greed funding AI doesn't seek to make humans temporarily unemployed. It seeks to make humans permanently unemployable.

      Don't worry. We're just getting near the top of the hype cycle. Reality will catch up and order will be restored.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @05:32PM (#63407346)

      We're creating intelligence this time.

      We are not. Most definitely not. And even the CEO of the ChatGPT maker warns that people should not expect intelligence to be created. What we do is advance the state automation tech by a bit and now we have reached a stage where a natural language interface actually works. Well, sort-of. Actual artificial intelligence (i.e. AGI) is as far out of reach as always, i.e. it is still completely unclear whether it is even possible. And please do not give me any quasi-religious "physicalist" bullshit dogma.

      That said, a lot of jobs can be made redundant with this non-intelligent automation tech now because many jobs do not require actual intelligence 95% of the time and the natural language interface can do a lot by itself. Think the Amazon warehouse model: 10 robots and one human minder and trouble-shooter (and 10% of an engineer or so) replace 10 humans. That is basically as bad for the job market as getting rid of those 10 humans altogether. This time there will essentially not be any new jobs to speak of and this time a lot of low/medium skill white-collar jobs will be gone.

      • by sarren1901 ( 5415506 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @05:45PM (#63407376)

        We don't expect most people to figure shit out. We expect them to do a specific set of tasks over and over again. Sure, some people are figuring stuff out, but not anywhere close to the majority, not even a simple majority.

        I always thought blue collar jobs would go first but turns out human interaction jobs will be what's left along side highly specialized jobs that only a fraction of society is capable of doing.

        I figure either there will eventually be a mass die off of humans or we will destroy the civilization and go back to the dark ages because there is no way the people in charge are going to some how allow us all to have an acceptable life that doesn't require us to work. It's not just going to happen, so expect a bad scenario to come true.

        Hopefully I'm wrong.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Same here. Just leaving this run with this many people that cannot compete with automation being out of a job will not turn out well at all.

      • We're creating intelligence this time.

        We are not. Most definitely not...That said, a lot of jobs can be made redundant with this non-intelligent automation tech now because many jobs do not require actual intelligence 95% of the time and the natural language interface can do a lot by itself...This time there will essentially not be any new jobs to speak of and this time a lot of low/medium skill white-collar jobs will be gone.

        Well, I'm glad you brought yourself right back to the entire point of mass unemployment. Now imagine your quaint little town where you and loved ones thrive today in relative peace, as non-intelligent automation starts to create a 20%+ unemployable rate because Greed simply doesn't care about instability it may cause. Then watch as Greed replaces humans with "good enough" AI and see how instability in a peace-loving society becomes considerably worse.

        Dunno about you, but I'm not exactly looking forward to

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          I have never argued that automation will not have devastating effects from a certain threshold onwards. A(G)I is not needed to replace a lot of jobs. The tech for that has existed for decades, it was just way too expensive and difficult to configure it. That has now possibly changed.

          Incidentally, this is the main reason I have argued for an UBI in tha past and still think it is a necessary (but not sufficient) component of any real solution. Given the customary resistance of the greedy, the stupid and those

    • I really hope a singularity forms skynet. Humans do not deserve this planet and we should just leave it to an AI machine god.
    • by Keick ( 252453 )

      No, your Governments don't have an answer for this, nor do they really give a shit.

      That's probably true at this exact instance, but they absolutely will give a shit if/when they start seeing the tax revenue river start to dry up.

      And if they let job loss increase too much, the economy will tank and it'll won't matter how much junk the AI can make if no one is buying.

      The way I see it; Chat GPT et.al. is making the system vibrate like mad, but it isn't swinging very far. Like every other complex system a new natural frequency will develop and the system will eventually normalize until the ne

  • by dmay34 ( 6770232 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @01:59PM (#63406720)

    You know what else killed millions of white collar jobs? Desktop Office suite programs, like Microsoft Office.

    Back in the 1950s-1980s, every office looked like the set from MadMen. Executives in their offices and small armies of grunts on desks pounding away on type writers and slide-rules doing all the nitty-gritty office work. Bosses would literally have tape deck voice recorders that they would speak out their reports, and grunt office labor would listen and type out the reports. There would be a whole floor of "computers", except back then "computer" was a job title for a grunt office worker to literally spend all day doing the arithmetic calculations and recording the results on spreadsheets. And spreadsheets where LITERAL massive sheets of lines and columns that office workers would write on.

    And here is the thing. The desktop office suite so completely destroyed that whole career path that you probably didn't even know it existed at all. Today, the bosses do all their own spreadsheet work and write their own reports, and doing that is far far far more cost efficient for businesses and customers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Adambomb ( 118938 )

      Today, the bosses do all their own spreadsheet work and write their own reports

      I was with you until this heh. In my experience no they do not, they get a jr analyst to do it then take credit for the resulting reporting.

      You're still right in that that's just a small number of analysts versus floor upon floor of people doing computations like in the past though, for sure.

      • GP's point still holds though; those people doing it now barked into the dictaphone before. Sure, some of the jr analysts replaced 10-20 individuals, but I have known plenty of senior executives that were pretty handy with Excel; they did it to validate the work of others generally, but could do enough themselves to get by.

        • by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

          Of course the exact "who-does-what" is going to vary significantly from org to org. Some bosses are much more hands on than others. But NO COMPANY ANYWHERE ON EARTH operates like most every company did in the 1960s.

        • Managers who write their own reports are about to be replaced by software that writes reports, and software that fires people. Just like most of the people who wrote reports got replaced by a few people who used reporting tools to do their job, only a lot faster.

          • by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

            Managers who write their own reports are about to be replaced by software that writes reports, and software that fires people. Just like most of the people who wrote reports got replaced by a few people who used reporting tools to do their job, only a lot faster.

            This is probably correct. But what will likely happen is that companies fill out with MORE people whose job it is to tell the AIs what to write and review and sign off on the AI's work. Companies aren't going to get smaller or higher fewer people. It'll be the same number of office people producing 10x the amount of work.

      • I was with you until this heh. In my experience no they do not, they get a jr analyst to do it then take credit for the resulting reporting.

        Even if the bosses aren't doing the spreadsheet work today themselves, 10-30 years ago they were the junior analysts who did the spreadsheet work.

    • I would also add programmer. If you look at the etymology of "programmer" you'll find some curious developments:

      1890 programmer = person who wrote program notes, aka event planner
      1910 programmer = woman who did computations for banks and telegraph
      1948 programmer = person who programs computers who were mostly women [siliconrepublic.com]
      1960 programmer = mostly men
      2020 roughly 28% of programmers are women

  • VCs, not humans (Score:3, Insightful)

    by angularbanjo ( 1521611 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @02:06PM (#63406748)

    "ChatGPT, which can create content that is indistinguishable from human output"

    VCs see it as content that is indistinguishable from human output, and this illustrates how much they value human output.

    • Except that output is, like it or not, mediocre. It's a McDonald's cheeseburger.

      Which I guess most people are cool with.

      I wouldn't be.

      • Sometimes you just need a cheeseburger, and you don't want to spend a lot to get it.
      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        And that is the point. ChatGPT can create low-quality content that is hard to distinguish from low-quality content created by humans. In many applications that does not cut it. Sure, if you produce, say a lot of really bad software, you can replace your wannabe coders with ChatGPT. But if you need quality? Impossible.

        • That's true today. What about in 5 years? 10 years? It's really only a matter of time before these AI systems can do acceptable work. The training data they use will get better and so will they. It's foolish to think development into more advanced AI is just going to stop. It won't.

    • by Junta ( 36770 )

      To be fair, there's a fair number of people in the industry that I have never seen rise to the level of outperforming ChatGPT. They royally suck, but are still somehow employed.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        To be fair, there's a fair number of people in the industry that I have never seen rise to the level of outperforming ChatGPT. They royally suck, but are still somehow employed.

        And _that_ is exactly the threat from these machines: A lot of people are pretty bad at their jobs. As ChatGPT has a natural language interface, it can replace pretty bad (and to some degree mediocre) white-collar workers. Sure, the results will be crappy, but for some areas this seems to be acceptable or the employers would have hired better people already. A lot of mindless office drones will be getting the ax and there will not be any replacement jobs this time. And that will create a massive problem for

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @02:42PM (#63406898) Journal
    Goldman has already fired all its analysts. This report itself was created by generative AI.
  • A reasonable guess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @02:48PM (#63406908)
    Any job that amounts to:

    1) google stuff
    2) copy and paste
    3) lightly edit to circumvent plagiarism and copyright law
    4Publish and profit!

    Will be drastically streamlined by the new systems. Instead of 5 people doing the job, 1 person will be checking the bots for “omg the AI went insane” moments.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. And for that one person you can now get somebody with an actual clue and still save a ton of money.

  • We apologize for the fault in the forecast. Those who were responsible for sacking those responsible have been sacked.

  • This thing is nowhere close to replacing jobs, if anything it may increase jobs as morons invest in it. It's a few decades from being good enough where it doesn't need to be babied. The thing that would replace jobs is dexterous robots, and we are nowhere close on that either. We still don't have lights out factories for anything.

  • The same Goldman Sachs who predicted the 2008 mortgage crisis.

  • According to this government site [bls.gov], in 2021 there were 3,402,300 top executives in the US, earning a median salary of $179,520. That's a combined compensation of $610 billion. Imagine the productivity boost to the US economy from replacing those top executives with CEOChatGPT! This should be a top priority for GPT researchers. I'm sure some top executive will surely see the immense benefit to society.

  • Most people would see less than half of their workload automated and would probably continue in their jobs, with some of their time freed up for more productive activities

    Or their employers will fire half of them and have the remaining do the same job with the help of AI. Either for greed sake, or to remain competitive.

    And the economical grow will not happen because there will be less consumers with a job and able to pay something

    • ...and the people fired will start up new businesses and create work including jobs that didn't exist before ...

      We have seen this supposed level of disruption before and white collar work especially expands to fill the void, as it's limited by how economical it is to do more work, not that there is not more work to do

      • We have seen this supposed level of disruption before

        Sure, we swaped agricultural labor for industrial labor, then industrial labor for white collar labor.

        But now we swap white collar labor for what?

  • Chat GPT is not real AI.
    It is a parlour trick, namely a Chinese Room, that people had already thought about decades ago.
    It is simply regurgitating phrases. It has NO understanding of the things it talks about.

    ChatGPT will soon lose its novelty and the press will move on.
    Real AI, computers that understand and can reason about our world, will be a seismic shift.
  • Generative AI will only affect white-collar office jobs, which is less than a third of the workforce.

    It will not affect: teachers, nurses, soldiers, cops, baristas, shop assistants, flight attendants, truck drivers, Uber drivers, couriers, construction workers, hairdressers, cooks, and gardeners. i.e. most of the population.

  • It is safe to say that the Morlocks will not lose their jobs. Someone has to fix our toilets, change our lightbulbs and, eventually, tie our shoelaces for us. The world will have no need for salespeople, executives, politicians, teachers, scientists, and paper pushers. We, the Eloi, will have nothing to do but enjoy life as the machines and the Morlocks take care of everything. This is what god intended for humanity.

  • So far, the main use of LLMs seems to be people smoking weed and asking ChatGPT to write fart poetry. The end of human civilization is near.

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...