Tech Leaders Say AI Will Change What It Means To Have a Job (wsj.com) 147
AI will likely lead to seismic changes to the workforce, eliminating many professions and requiring a societal rethink of how people spend their time, prominent tech leaders said Tuesday. From a report: Speaking at The Wall Street Journal's Tech Live conference on Tuesday, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said that the changes could hit some people in the economy more seriously than others, even if society as a whole improves. This will likely be a hard sell for the most affected people, he said. "We are really going to have to do something about this transition," said Altman, who added that society will have to confront the speed at which the change happens. "People need to have agency, the ability to influence. We need to jointly be architects of the future." Artificial intelligence is expected to transform the global economy by driving gains in both productivity and growth. But economists and tech entrepreneurs are divided on how quickly this shift could -- and should -- happen.
Earlier Tuesday, Vinod Khosla, a prominent venture capitalist whose firm was one of OpenAI's earliest backers, laid out a stark timeline for AI's transformation of work. Within 10 years AI will be able to "do 80% of 80% of all jobs that we know of today," said Khosla, a tech investor and entrepreneur for more than 40 years. He pointed to many types of physicians and accountants as examples of professions that AI could largely supplant because these systems can more easily access a broad array of knowledge. Khosla likened the extent of the workforce changes to the disappearance of agricultural jobs in the U.S. in the 20th Century -- a transition that took place over generations, not years.
Earlier Tuesday, Vinod Khosla, a prominent venture capitalist whose firm was one of OpenAI's earliest backers, laid out a stark timeline for AI's transformation of work. Within 10 years AI will be able to "do 80% of 80% of all jobs that we know of today," said Khosla, a tech investor and entrepreneur for more than 40 years. He pointed to many types of physicians and accountants as examples of professions that AI could largely supplant because these systems can more easily access a broad array of knowledge. Khosla likened the extent of the workforce changes to the disappearance of agricultural jobs in the U.S. in the 20th Century -- a transition that took place over generations, not years.
Generations or Years? (Score:4, Interesting)
Khosla likened the extent of the workforce changes to the disappearance of agricultural jobs in the U.S. in the 20th Century -- a transition that took place over generations, not years.
The rate of technological change is ever accelerating, because it permits more automation which itself permits more advancement. AI is decreasing jobs now by letting some kinds of workers do the work of multiple workers now. And we're already in a jobs shortage, despite reports of "new" "jobs" being "created" — many of those jobs are outright fakes [wsj.com] intended for one of various malicious purposes. Justifying H1B hiring, an employee has already been chosen but the process requires interviewing more people even if you have no intention of hiring them, or just simply collecting resumes or just demographic data about applicants.
This revolution will be like the last revolution in that it will not be instant and it will not destroy all the jobs. But it will also be unlike the last revolution because it will be faster.
Re:Generations or Years? (Score:4, Interesting)
And we're already in a jobs shortage....
I dont know about this part. Our unemployment rate is currently 3.8% while most economists call a rate of between 3 and 5% healthy https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com] . Now I know official unemployment numbers dont always cover the whole picture but economists also know this and such things should be reflected in their ideal range for unemployment. Even wages are up as a whole https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/... [ssa.gov] .
Of course those on the lowest rungs are still getting screwed with their wages buying less every day and with their numbers growing but that's not what you were talking about as those workers arent the ones currently being replaced by AI for the most part.
Basically, I think it's a little soon to be claiming AI is significantly hurting the job market right here and now as the numbers dont really seem to support that much.
Re:Generations or Years? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even wages are up as a whole
Real wages are down when compared to the cost of living, which is not adequately represented in the published rate of inflation, just like the people who have been looking for work for more than six months are not represented in the published rate of employment. The number of homeless in the country is increasing while they are claiming that the rate of unemployment is falling, and that is not how anything works.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I covered everything you bring up here. The economists who make the range are aware of its short comings and set the range accordingly and those on the lowest rungs are increasingly poor, hence the growing homelessness rate you cite https://www.brc.org/post/with-... [brc.org]. . Welcome to the wonderful world of the working homeless that we're creating.
Once again though, those on the lowest rungs arent typically the ones we're worried about being replaced by AI right now as far as I understand things.
Re:Generations or Years? (Score:5, Interesting)
Once again though, those on the lowest rungs arent typically the ones we're worried about being replaced by AI right now as far as I understand things.
Sure they are. They're already starting to use AI to:
And so on. All of those are relatively low-rung jobs that are in the process of getting eaten by AI, and could be almost entirely gone in ten years, assuming economies of scale bring the costs of the hardware down quickly enough (and starting to decline by then, regardless).
The main difference is that AI is also expected to reach much higher on the ladder than previous automation did. But that doesn't mean it won't devastate the bottom rung, replacing most of the remaining jobs that weren't automatable before.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they are. They're already starting to use AI to:
An order-taking bot is not AI in any sense.
Control Roomba-style lawnmowers that can mow your lawn and recharge without human involvement.
These are simple robots. Not AI, any more than a Roomba vacuum cleaner.
Flip burgers.
Robots. Not AI.
Reduce customer service phone calls and chats.
Oh yeah, those customer service bots. Artificial, yes. Intelligence? Not that I've seen. The most likely outcome here is a huge increase in the number of emails the customer service department has to deal with, because the bots are useless for anything beyond the very basics.
Automate manufacturing of pretty much everything.
Again, mostly non-AI robots, and not new.
Mine minerals.
Robots again, and again, they've been in use for many years. No, or minimal, AI required.
Drive taxis and big rig trucks.
Some pilot programs for taxis, with very mixed results; however, probably inevitable at some point. This will likely turn out to be a boon for Uber and Lift drivers to accommodate people who are uncomfortable being passengers in a driverless vehicle. For big rigs, it would be good if they can get it working, because the number of people entering the ranks of big rig drivers is declining sharply. I don't see this as replacing people, but compensating for the lack of people.
Bottom line, the "bottom rung" has always been the most vulnerable to increased automation, because the things they do don't require a lot of skill or training.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of homelessness increasing does not preclude unemployment falling. Housing costs in some areas are so high that a low-wage job may not be enough to keep up. One people do lose housing, they are more likely to succumb to pre-existing mental illnesses or substance abuse problems that make it difficult to sustain employment even if it's theoretically available. That can happen even while there are plenty of jobs available for those who are able to work.
It can also be true that real wages are up over
Re: Generations or Years? (Score:2)
"In fact, the rise in home prices have accrued to your benefit."
Sure, if you're a homeowner in California. Everyone else gets the joy of paying higher property taxes while their income decreases
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's something I've been pointing out for decades, and most of the time, those posts have been ignored. To be more accurate, though, it's not six months, it's long enough that your unemployment benefits have run out. When that happens, you're considered to have "left the workforce" and are no longer counted. Doing that keeps the official number of unemployed artificially
Re: Generations or Years? (Score:2)
Yeah, the UIB runs out in six months so the one thing is the other. You're lucky you've been ignored for saying that though, I get modded down for it. Still going to keep saying it... But how irritating.
Re: (Score:2)
You're lucky you've been ignored for saying that though, I get modded down for it. Still going to keep saying it... But how irritating.
Maybe it's not your message, but the way you express it? But hey, if you're getting modded down, at least you know someone is reading it, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah the Tory's really fucked up your NHS with the decade of significant underfunding they're at the end of. I dont envy Labor's job of fixing that problem when they win the next election.
Re: Generations or Years? (Score:3)
Re:Generations or Years? (Score:5, Interesting)
The rate of technological change is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar slower than people think. For example, automobile travel and roads have not changed significantly since the 1960s. Air traffic control is still done by voice over noisy channels. Clothing is still sewn by Asian ladies on the same sewing machines as 1960. Airplanes are not much different than the 707, nor faster. Houses are still built from wood sticks and gypsum, 3D printing notwithstanding. Trains still run on steel track, same as 1850, though at higher speeds in a few countries.
The only significant changes have been in electronics and consequently everything digital.
Yes general AI will change everything. I doubt it will exist during the lifetime of anyone who might read this.
Re:Generations or Years? (Score:4, Informative)
Hey look everybody, some one has discovered the fact that economics and efficiency eventually plateau's. Automobile technology has changed dramatically since the 1960's, tire technology, braking, sensor, controls technology has been making improvements year over year. Or do you still adjust the points on your car, do you add tetraethyl lead to give you that high compression ratio or adjust the choke on those cold winter mornings? BEVs using lithium-ion have become fairly widespread as well. You think that steel track is manufactured the same way it was back in 1850? Or perhaps you have a job as the chief stoker on the locomotive. After the Concord failed in the 70's there's been no real need to move airplanes faster.
Yes general AI will change everything. I doubt it will exist during the lifetime of anyone who might read this.
640k should be enough for anybody. Or perhaps, no wireless, less space than Nomad, lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Generations or Years? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
since 1960?? such a long view of history you are taking....
"automobile travel and roads have not changed much since then."
SO WHAT?
From the first upright bipedal homo sap to the year 1900 ad MILENNIA of humanity walking
to utilizing onkeys & horses, including in the USA through the 1800's covered with country roads with dirt paths and wagon wheel ruts.
the late 19th century invention of the mass produced car happened just a hair over 100 years ago
and it was slightly disruptive to the conventions of the
Re: Generations or Years? (Score:3)
we need to remove healthcare from jobs (usa issue) (Score:4, Insightful)
we need to remove healthcare from jobs (usa issue)
Re: (Score:2)
we need to remove healthcare from jobs (usa issue)
Here in the US? If our government officials see this they'll stop at the bolded part and think, "Shit? Why didn't we think of that. Plebes? No more healthcare at all. We'll keep our caddillac plan, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:we need to remove healthcare from jobs (usa iss (Score:4, Insightful)
you think that healthcare when offered through a job is a caddillac plan? healthcare associated with jobs is to keep plebes tied to their job. this is not to the benefit of the employee. the employer takes into acount how much the healthcare plan costs and associates it with the "total compensation" package. it's not free to employees at all. the money handled by the employer so they can have power over employees.
Uh, no. Apparently my brain wasn't sufficiently woke up when I wrote that. I meant our politicians have caddillac plans, payed for by us, of course. While they all tell us that employer offered insurance is absolutely fantastic and nobody's ever complained about it. Except for literally anybody that's not getting kickbacks from the insurance companies. So, what? 99.8% of Americans?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a boomer; early boomer. Back in the '50s, when I was a child, my father worked in the Retail Food Industry, aka supermarkets, in a union job. Many years later, he told me that back then, during one contract negotiation, the union was offered the choice between a raise or medical benefits. After much thought, he voted for the health plan and considered it the best decision he ever made.
I would imagine they weren't paying quite the same rates as we do now, and that was back before "medical services as a profit center" became the norm. Once the huge conglomerates took over the hospitals and clinics around here, it's damned near impossible to see a doctor for anything short of surgery, and the nurse practitioners are being phased out in favor of techs because they're cheaper to keep on-staff. I didn't even mind health insurance as it was back in my younger years (1990s), but the costs seemed
Re: (Score:2)
we need to remove healthcare from jobs (usa issue)
Here in the US? If our government officials see this they'll stop at the bolded part and think, "Shit? Why didn't we think of that. Plebes? No more healthcare at all. We'll keep our cadillac plan, thanks.
In my experience, only the "modern Confederates" and oligarchs believe that healthcare should be eliminated or run with "free market" principles.
Re: (Score:2)
we need to remove healthcare from jobs (usa issue)
Here in the US? If our government officials see this they'll stop at the bolded part and think, "Shit? Why didn't we think of that. Plebes? No more healthcare at all. We'll keep our cadillac plan, thanks.
In my experience, only the "modern Confederates" and oligarchs believe that healthcare should be eliminated or run with "free market" principles.
Both parties in office have the same "gotta keep the insurance companies happy" policies in practice, no matter how good a game the Democrats talk when it comes to this issue. Hell, Biden basically campaigned with the saying, "I've spoken to plenty of people that love their insurance and do not want to have it negatively impacted by universal healthcare." The one big move they've made? Trying to legalize strong-arm tactics to FORCE people to pay the insurance companies. I kept insurance until the Affordable
Now look at this, I was wrong (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the invention of the magic-8-balls will be the death spell to the CEO position, but it seems AI will be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon has already shown that being a CEO is only a part time job. If he can run Boring/Tesla/X/Neuralink/SpaceX simultaneously, then being a CEO is a 1-day-a-week job at most, right?
time to cut down what is full time? and not go the (Score:3)
time to cut down what is full time? and not go the other way.
Let's see with AI an department that used to have 10 workers now only needs 3-4 but they now need to work 996 to get it done and the people who just want 955 are let go.
Re: time to cut down what is full time? and not go (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
time to cut down what is full time? and not go the other way.
Not in America, pal. We'll fire half the workforce long before AI is really doing much of the work, then make the other half work twice the hours to compensate. If they complain? Replace them with the fired half and repeat every few months. That's a good way to keep everybody off those pesky, costly company benefits that kick in after the probationary period. SAVING MONEY! WOO!
Re: (Score:2)
Woah there!
To summarize the summary, "Investor in AI startup says everything will change quickly because of the product the startup is building."
I love ChatGPT and am able to use it in many practical ways. But let's not drink the kool-aid before calamity actually happens. It's not going to be quick as catastrophic as all that. Society can't shift gears quite that quickly.
One group that is never affected (Score:2)
I notice that owners and executives are never affected by things like this. They are somehow irreplaceable.
You also need to keep some of those people being eliminated to verify the output of AI and you have to ask who is held legally accountable for errors Agriculture isn't providing a service, it is outputting a product that either is produced correctly or not. In the case of a physician or accountant they are analyzing data and producing conclusions and recommendations. It isn't immediately clear if t
Re: (Score:3)
I started my business with three other partners-- each of us had a primary skill that we brought to the table. AI, if it ever hits the levels the summary discusses, would safely reduce that to 2-3 people while reducing pain. The 2-3 people would be able to cover HR, Accounting, Marketing, and office management until the company hit about 25-30 people, instead of needing the extra help at 10 people total. Those owners would also be likely able to scale the company to 75-100 employees rather than 50, and pres
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Owning the value of other people's labor isn't the same as producing it.
Sleep at the desk (Score:2)
Re: Sleep at the desk (Score:5, Funny)
As long as I can do that from home . ..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I like the idea of UBI, I think society will quickly devolve into clout-chasing attention whoring.
If we all work for the government, we'll all become government officials? Yup. Sounds about right.
Re: (Score:2)
Tech leaders say... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
About what you expect from a "culture" where the mottos are "disrupt" and "move fast and break things."
How about "improve lives?"
Re: (Score:2)
I respectfully disagree. The world certainly has issues, but Tech has made things better than it was forty years ago. It's been a race between the economic ruin of globalization's "value engineering" and a steady stream of improvements from technology. Thankfully, Tech has been winning.
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, "Back of AI startup says AI will change the world."
Yes, it will, but maybe not as dramatically or quickly as said backer thinks.
Lesson from Better.com for CEOs (Score:2)
Prediction: (Score:2)
Those with the most capital will use AI to remove dependence on employees wherever possible, increasing their income while causing massive unemployment. New jobs will not magically appear for the unemployed, and wealth disparity will expand rapidly.
Without a wealth tax and a universal basic income to compensate for the flaws of capitalism, we will inevitably race towards the end stage, where a very small number of people control a very large number of desperately poor.
It's already happening for me (Score:2)
I can't estimate a percentage, but AI is already making most of my job.
We already know this (Score:2)
Lawyers and Politicians (Score:2)
The first thing that should be replaced by AI is lawyers and politicians.
If that doesn't happen, then we're just going to end up slaves to the machines, and some rich asshole will be behind it all. It's not me, it's the machines! they will say.
Don't fall for it.
Good that it's discussed, pity it'll be dismissed (Score:2)
It's unfortunate that most likely lawmakers and the general public will think of how to prevent these job losses instead of how to adapt to a future where a lot fewer people need to work.
At least in the US. The EU might take it more seriously and actually get us a nicer future.
Interesting story from the past (Score:2)
Many, many, many years ago (something, something decades ago) I had come across some books with sci-fi short stories in them. It was about the size of a Reader's Digest (remember those?) and was well known at the time (so well known I can't remember what it was called. Asimov was involved).
One of the stories involved robots playing football (U.S. version). Because the game had gotten so dangerous, robots were used in place of humans. There were restrictions on their programming, one of which had to do with
Re: (Score:2)
Many, many, many years ago (something, something decades ago) I had come across some books with sci-fi short stories in them. It was about the size of a Reader's Digest (remember those?) and was well known at the time (so well known I can't remember what it was called. Asimov was involved).
I don't know what the story was but the publication was almost certainly "Asimov's Science Fiction" [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That is probably it. There were two other stories from those books I remember. One involved a soldier landing on D-Day who, instead of dying, was transported to a cave where aliens questioned him on how he died and were there other ways to die. They made him relive his landing over and over and each time asked more and more questions. The guy was a private so didn't know much, but as the story went along he kept coming up with more and more sci-fi weapons such as the ability to transport a mini-nuclear b
Re: (Score:2)
What will we do? (Score:3, Interesting)
"We are really going to have to do something about this transition," said Altman, who added that society will have to confront the speed at which the change happens.
Yes, we are really going to have to do something. The problem with this line of reasoning is that most of us are just working our asses off to survive right now. So, they give us the collective *WE* when speaking about how to tackle the coming changes, while only the owner class and the government officials who are fully owned by the owner class will have the ability to actually do something about the transition. And why would they want to do anything about it. Their profits will increase as more and more people lose their jobs to automation, and then they can spend several years telling people that instead of working ten hours days and most weekends they should have spent that time retraining for whatever jobs will be lost next year. It's going to be a bloodbath until enough of the working class are out of work that the owner class can't squeeze enough profit out of us. Then the solutions will probably get even more frightening. At least here in the states. Maybe overseas, where some of the governments are still paying a bit of attention to the people they serve, something will be done to help people survive. But here in the states, we've been locked in on "the economy" being the only thing that matters. And "the economy" doesn't include anything other than profit for Wall Street and the owner class. So once they start getting impacted negatively? Look out. I fear we'll start seeing some serious public discussion about how to "deal" with the homelessness, the poverty, the destitution. And I'm certain the kindest solution will make our current for-profit prison system look like a god damned luxury resort. I'm also certain it won't take much to see the concept of "for your own good" prisons turn to "too many people in these places. We need to start eliminating useless, non-working, non-profitable people."
AI won't have to turn killer like all the sci-fi bullshit says. We'll take care of most of it ourselves. In the name of "bettering all of society." Which currently means bettering things for the owner class and the government officials that play buddy-buddy with them. The rest of us can go die without dignity, without resources, and without support. It's what we were born to do anyway. Just as well hasten it along.
Worship the holy profit! Profit is all. Profit is god. Those of us not contributing to the holy profit shall be damned to a meaningless, brief existence. And should be getting out of the way of the truly worthy, those who hold the holy profit. Amen.
Re: (Score:2)
How will they get money when consumers can't buy anything?
They figured out a way to make prisons for-profit. I'm sure they can figure out a way to make homelessness profitable, if there's a large enough subset of humans available to plunder.
Re: (Score:2)
The jobs most likely to be impacted by AI include
- Software developers - Doctors - Lawyers - Engineers - Essentially any type of "professional"
The jobs least likely to be impacted include
- Service industry worker - Electrician / Plumber / Welder - Carpainter - Essentially any type of "labourer"
IE - The jobs that AI are going to displace are the highest-paying ones in the current economy, the folks who comprise the upper-middle and. upper-class. It is the jobs of the 10% that will feel the pain, not the jobs of the 90%.
You're not wrong for where we are today. That said, I can promise you it won't be the upper 1-2% feeling that impact. It's a nice opportunity for that upper echelon to push the folks who are approaching their level back down into the dirt. It'll help further strengthen the gap between the haves and have-nots, and put a lot more folks into the have-not category.
BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Tech leaders kinda have to believe their own bullshit in order to sell it to you. What we call AI today is no threat. Let me know when it can check its own work.
Re: (Score:2)
Tech leaders kinda have to believe their own bullshit in order to sell it to you. What we call AI today is no threat. Let me know when it can check its own work.
AI isn't a threat. It's the same people that have been a threat to the rest of us using what they're calling AI that are the threat. They can and absolutely WILL use automation to eliminate as many jobs as possible. Discussing what happens then is all well and good, but nobody in a position of power that's sufficient to make the changes necessary to face this with anything other than absolutely devastating results will not make those changes because it will have a short-term impact on potential profits. And
AI and automation tools are capital (Score:5, Interesting)
So the only question is will the rate at which these automation tools destroy jobs exceed new job creation. I'm of a mind that it will. Folks gloss over what happened during the industrial revolution. People put out of work didn't usually just head right over to the new jobs. There was a gap before new tech (and let's face it, wars) created new jobs. That gap wasn't measured in months or even years, more like decades.
Try this exercise: list 5 jobs that modern automation will displace and then 5 jobs that will replace those jobs. Make sure the displaced workers are able to take the new jobs both in terms of education and skill. Ask yourself if we will pay to train those new workers (and keep them fed & clothed while they're learning). Show your work.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot the government can do to 'smooth the transition'
Just one example. I think it was Toyota that has a small number of craftsmen who know how to build parts manually. Could be another company, but that is besides the point. They did this so the knowledge is retained and how to manufacture/improve is also there.
The government could have laws that a certain number of people oversee AI results for knowledge retention and sanity checks. For example, I worked on cancer/anomaly detection software for a
So make work jobs? (Score:2)
What you're gonna run into is "who's gonna pay for it?". Also "why should I pay somebody to not work?"
Moreover, you're calling it a transition. A transition to what? New space age futuristic jobs?
Re: (Score:2)
or occasionally out of fear of hell
Well, don't worry, the "party of science" (e.g. magical gender changes by wishing) has been working hard on getting rid of that.
And look at all the great results! Peace, low crime rates, prosperity ...
A simple mitigating effect would be to not... (Score:5, Funny)
purchase anything made by an AI or AI controlled automation unless it is a medical development required for life saving / quality of life.
No AI movies, TV, books, music, etc.. Refuse to patronize entertainments that are not created by human minds and hands. Encourage creation of arts that are analogue, require manual dexterity, and the acquisition of practiced skills to create. Celebrate those that shoot to, edit, and release films using only practical effects and living performers acting out scripts written by living people. Promote musicians that can play their music live on actual instruments, Buy books written only by people, surf sites hosting only content made by a person.
Stop purchasing clothing or finished good made via automation and instead spend a little more to go to an actual local tailor or craftsperson to have quality goods made bespoke.
This may help to mitigate AIs crowding out artists of all stripes and people that want to make a living making things.
The inexorable decline of deskbound bureaucracy, marketing, and middle-management busy-worker keyboard twiddlers I have no idea how to mitigate.
Vote with your money and attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. I agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
> unless it is a medical development required for life saving / quality of life.
Alas, I expect that won't be an exception. I think most of the uses will be substantial life/quality of life improvements. For example: AI management of industry to minimize waste, to minimize shipping routes, to minimize excess production: all of these are going to be critical to climate change prevention. An AI that can actually absorb all the information about the economy in real-time can make more precise judgements than
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The administrators, managers, analysts, etc. - the people that sit and twiddle a keyboard to process information are going to be hit pretty hard by this because there is literally no way to justify paying a human being to do an inferior job in non-creative professions.
Or, hear me out (Score:2)
Fun fact, China built so many homes & apartments they could house a population twice their size. And they just did it for the lulz and to keep their people busy.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this is the first time I have gotten a response from rsilvergun, from the way most people respond to the posts that you make this is an honor apparently equivalent to getting f***** in the ass at a Truck Stop bathroom when you didn't want to; but I agree with everything you just said. I'm a far left authoritarian communist, I will get in line for my rifle when the revolution comes to tear down the capitalist establishment and send all of the f****** that knowingly exploited the people and the envi
Sounds like it's time to plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you actually believe the hype spouted by a backer of an AI startup.
Yes, AI will change things, but not nearly as quickly or profoundly as said backer says.
Oh what shall we do? (Score:5, Informative)
Gee, what SHOULD we do about the underskilled and underemployed, Sam?
(OpenAI CEO Sam Altman net worth around $500 million.)
https://www.thestreet.com/inve... [thestreet.com]
I'm not really a 'soak the rich' kinda guy, but the idea of a bunch of hundred-millionaires strutting around at this conference bemoaning 'what possibly can we do about the people being left behind?' makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
Just a reminder,
US Nat'l median household income is $75k with 2 earners.
Globally, it's more like $12k.
Mr Altman, dumping only half his wealth, could fund 20,000 family-years of global income. More importantly he could do any number of 'big projects' - save 10 million kids from malnutrition, for example.
Dump his worth *how*, exactly? (Score:2)
Isn't Altman's worth in OpenAI stock?
To turn that into saving kids from malnutrition, we'd need to sell his stock. So, who can *buy* $250 million in OpenAI stock?
Some other wealthy person? No, we want them to put their wealth into families and kids, too.
China? I'm sure they'd be happy to buy a controlling interest in all our technology firms.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, absolutely a bunch of his current worth is OpenAI options, I'm sure but if you look into him he was pretty bloody wealthy to start from I guess other dot.com-y things.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, absolutely a bunch of his current worth is OpenAI options, I'm sure but if you look into him he was pretty bloody wealthy to start from I guess other dot.com-y things.
Which all have the same problem. Particularly if we're going after all the tech barons (or all the rich investors, period) and not just this one guy. In order to turn stock value into cash you can do something with, someone else has to buy the stock. So, who's going to buy it?
Let's hope it replaces the (Score:2)
...fluff-pundits who wrote this.
Rich (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Something tells me LLM "AI"s are a con, or at least hype, certainly not able to replace hundreds of professional employees in a company.
If it was easy to automate that kind of work and trust it to an AI we would be seeing companies fire people and have a bot do those roles. When is the last time you saw an AI investment analyst or an account? If it worked and made/saved money I guarantee Wall Street would be using them already.
It's a similar thing with the autonomous robots from Boston Dynamics: if in fact
Out of touch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>>> the number of 70 year olds is increasing, but the total number of people in health care is decreasing
The movement of AI into health care can't come soon enough. I'm tired of human doctors just going through the motions, I'd prefer an AI that could look at the totality of a patients symptoms, compare them with the totality of the medical literature and with the totality of known human body chemistry, and be able to spit back two or three likely diagnoses to pursue. Maybe this process is guided
Re: (Score:2)
time for more workers to go union! (Score:2)
time for more workers to go union!
They say this (Score:2)
With barely concealed erections.
What Could Change With AI? (Score:2)
10% of the population owns 85% of the wealth (Score:2)
The economy of 90% of the population is largely irrelevant.
Who is going to buy the widgets when nobody is paid to make widgets?
As long as the rich are comfortable, they don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
The rich won't continue to be rich if they can't sell their widgets to anyone.
We'll all work for Multivac (Score:2)
And it tells bad jokes.
In case you haven't heard/seen this all before... (Score:3)
Personally, I'm already using AI on projects that were previously unfeasible due to the quantity of skilled labour involved. However, I believe that what I'm doing isn't a typical use-case scenario, e.g. it really doesn't matter if the output texts aren't particularly factually correct & any glaring errors can easily be corrected. Also the lack of "authentic voice" (distinctiveness) & fairly banal, repetitive nature of much of the texts LLMs produce isn't an issue either - they just have to be very, very typical & the literary over-embellishments that they typically produce can simply be deleted without any loss of coherence or cohesion. It's certainly quicker & cheaper than getting humans to write it.
However, for anything where the information has to be accurate, up-to-date, relevant, & appropriate for the target audience, correcting LLMs' output is more trouble than it's worth. They frequently & confidently regurgitate myths that were de-bunked decades ago & recommend practices that have long since been superseded.
AI startup backer says AI will transform the world (Score:2)
Earlier Tuesday, Vinod Khosla, a prominent venture capitalist whose firm was one of OpenAI's earliest backers, laid out a stark timeline for AI's transformation of work. Within 10 years AI will be able to "do 80% of 80% of all jobs that we know of today," said Khosla, a tech investor and entrepreneur for more than 40 years
Remember the 90's? This kind of hype was everywhere. Breathless startup promoters explaining why their online grocery seller would put traditional grocery stores out of business.
Well of course one of "OpenAI's earliest backers" would drink the kool-aid.
AI *will* change things (just as the web and e-commerce changed things in the 90s) but the world is not about to end. Take a deep breath everybody!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to ban the kinds of AI around today would be more like banning encryption; useless when everyone can download some code and do it on commodity hardware that can't be meaningfull
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's like the people that choose not to breed because they want to save the world from overpopulation*. That's great if it makes you feel good, but your genes (and your altruism) die with you, removing them from future generations.
* The world is not currently overpopulated, and the second derivative of population growth is negative. The danger of overpopulation is low.
Re: (Score:3)
The Luddites weren't a class of backwards technophobes, they protested the uncontrolled introduction of technology that materially devastated their ability to exist in the labour market without social policy controls to avoid driving thousands into poverty in the name of increased profits to the company owners.
You know... exactly the issue at hand.