"Stop AI from taking our jobs" - This shouldn't be solved through regulation. It's on politicians to help people adapt to a new economic reality, not to artificially preserve bullshit jobs.

So politicians are supposed to create "non bullshit" jobs out of thin air?

The job you've done for decades is suddenly bullshit because some shit LLM is hallucinating nice sounding words?

▲

terminalshort 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

At this point if an LLM can do your job, it was already bullshit. But in the future when they can do non bullshit jobs, then you can go get another one just like every other person out of the billions who has had their job made obsolete by technology. It's not that hard.

▲

LexiMax 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If large swaths of people lose their jobs to AI, have no job prospects due to the presence of AI, and can't afford their next meal in the here and now, that is a recipe for civil unrest.

▲

raw_anon_1111 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

You give way too much credit to the US electorate. Right now vast swaths of the country are worshipping a billionaire and support policies that are actively harming them because the politicians claim to hate the same people they hate and/or quote scripture.

	▲	LexiMax 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Hunger knows no political party.

▲

agentultra 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But in the future when they can do non bullshit jobs, then you can go get another one just like every other person out of the billions who has had their job made obsolete by technology. It's not that hard.

This was the argument made by the capitalists after they had jailed and murdered most of the people in the Luddite movement before there was employment regulation.

They ignored what the Luddites were protesting for and suggested it was about people who just didn't understand how the new industrial economy worked. Don't they know that they can get jobs elsewhere and we, as a society, can be more productive for it?

The problem is that this was tone deaf. There were no labor regulations yet and the Luddites were smashing looms as that form of violence was the only leverage they had to ask for: elimination of child labor, social support that wasn't just government workhouses (ie: indentured servitude), and labor laws that protected workers. These people weren't asking everyone to make cloth by hand forever because they liked making cloth by hand and thought it should stay that way.

In modern times I think what many people are concerned about with companies getting hot for throwing labor out into the streets when it's not profitable for them anymore is that there are once more a lack of social supports in place to make sure those people's basic needs are met.

... and that's just one of the economic and social impacts of this technology.

▲

piva00 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They do create bullshit jobs in finance by propping up the system when it's about to collapse from the consequences of their own actions though.

Not that I believe they should allow the financial system to collapse without intervention but the interventions during recent crises have been done to save corporations that should have been extinguished instead of the common people who were affected by their consequences.

Which I believe is what's lacking in the whole discussion, politicians shouldn't be trying to maintain the labour status quo if/when AI change the landscape because that would be a distortion of reality but there needs to be some off-ramp, and direct help for people who will suffer from the change in landscape without going through the bullshit of helping companies in the hopes they eventually help people. As many in HN say, companies are not charities, if they can make an extra buck by fucking someone they will do it, the government is supposed to be helping people as a collective.