> This is what the AI boom is really about, removing more power from labor. Its why all the AI hype largely markets itself in this way "how AI can replace or minimize X role" as opposed to "This is how you can use AI to empower your workforce in the majority of discourse I've seen around it.

Arguably, AI is largely marketed that way because that's what corporate buyers care about, the same way every productivity improving invention has been marketed to corporate buyers even if a major actual effect is increasing the value of each labor hour and driving wages up. (Which is largely isomorphic to reducing the number X role needed in the production of Y units of a good or service.)

Its also sold as a labor productivity increase to independent creators. And the two things are, after all, different sides of the same coin.

▲

nosianu 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Arguably, AI is largely marketed that way because that's what corporate buyers care about

Why "arguably", that is exactly what he wrote

▲

dragonwriter 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, he wrote that it was marketed that way because that is what the “AI boom is really about”, in opposition to something else, which I also discuss in the post you excerpted this from. Not sure if you didn’t read the whole post and just kneejerk reacted to the first part of the first sentence out of context, or if you just didn’t understand how it sharply differs from the claims in the post it responds to.

	▲	no_wizard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		What is it really about, in contrast to what I assert? I'm looking at how its being implemented, talked about, thought about, introduced. I'm happy to re-evaluate my stance in the light of better evidence, but the AI adoption has corresponded to alot of CEOs announcing layoffs with a simultaneous doubling down on AI tools to replace those now displaced workers or those LinkedIn stories from people saying how they will never have to hire X or Y because AI will do it / does it.