| ▲ | dakolli 2 hours ago |
| Their goal is to monopolize labor for anything that has to do with i/o on a computer, which is way more than SWE. Its simple, this technology literally cannot create new jobs it simply can cause one engineer (or any worker whos job has to do with computer i/o) to do the work of 3, therefore allowing you to replace workers (and overwork the ones you keep). Companies don't need "more work" half the "features"/"products" that companies produce is already just extra. They can get rid of 1/3-2/3s of their labor and make the same amount of money, why wouldn't they. ZeroHedge on twitter said the following: "According to the market, AI will disrupt everything... except labor, which magically will be just fine after millions are laid off." Its also worth noting that if you can create a business with an LLM, so can everyone else. And sadly everyone has the same ideas, everyone ends up working on the same things causing competition to push margins to nothing. There's nothing special about building with LLMs as anyone can just copy you that has access to the same models and basic thought processes. This is basic economics. If everyone had an oil well on their property that was affordable to operate the price of oil would be more akin to the price of water. |
|
| ▲ | conception an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I have never been in an organization where everyone was sitting around, wondering what to do next. If the economy was actually as good as certain government officials claimed to be, we would be hiring people left and right to be able to do three times as much work, not firing. |
| |
| ▲ | dakolli 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's the thing, profits and equities are at all time highs, but these companies have laid off 400k SWEs in the last 16 months in the US, which should tell you what their plans are for this technology and augmenting their businesses. |
|
|
| ▲ | guyomes 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > They can get rid of 1/3-2/3s of their labor and make the same amount of money, why wouldn't they. Competition may encourage companies to keep their labor. For example, in the video game industry, if the competitors of a company start shipping their games to all consoles at once, the company might want to do the same. Or if independent studios start shipping triple A games, a big studio may want to keep their labor to create quintuple A games. On the other hand, even in an optimistic scenario where labor is still required, the skills required for the jobs might change. And since the AI tools are not mature yet, it is difficult to know which new skills will be useful in ten years from now, and it is even more difficult to start training for those new skills now. With the help of AI tools, what would a quintuple A game look like? Maybe once we see some companies shipping quintuple A games that have commercial success, we might have some ideas on what new skills could be useful in the video game industry for example. |
|
| ▲ | jasondigitized an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So like....every business having electricity? I am not a economist so would love someone smarter than me explain how this is any different than the advent of electricity and how that affected labor. |
| |
| ▲ | shimman an hour ago | parent [-] | | The difference is that electricity wasn't being controlled by oligarchs that want to shape society so they become more rich while pillaging the planet and hurting/killing real human beings. I'd be more trusting of LLM companies if they were all workplace democracies, not really a big fan of the centrally planned monarchies that seem to be most US corporations. | | |
| ▲ | pousada 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | While I’m on your side electricity was (is?) controlled by oligarchs whose only goal was to become richer. It’s the same type of people that now build AI companies | |
| ▲ | wedog6 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Heard of Carnegie? He controlled coal when it was the main fuel used for heating and electricity. | | |
| ▲ | HalfCrimp 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A reference to one of the hall of fame Robber Barons does seem pretty apt right now.. |
| |
| ▲ | K0balt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Its main distinction from previous forms of automation is its ability to apply reasoning to processes and its potential to operate almost entirely without supervision, and also to be retasked with trivial effort. Conventional automation requires huge investments in a very specific process. Widespread automation will allow highly automated organizations to pivot or repurpose overnight. | |
| ▲ | vel0city an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean your description sounds a lot like the early history of large industrialization of electricity. Lots of questionable safety and labor practices, proprietary systems, misinformation, doing absolutely terrible things to the environment to fuel this demand, massive monopolies, etc. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mbrumlow 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > They can get rid of 1/3-2/3s of their labor and make the same amount of money, why wouldn't they. Because companies want to make MORE money. Your hypothetical company is now competing with another company who didn’t opposite, and now they get to market faster, fix bugs faster, add feature faster, and responding to changes in the industry faster. Which results in them making more, while your employ less company is just status quo. Also. With regards to oil, the consumption of oil increases as it became cheaper. With AI we now have a chance to do projects that simply would have cost way too much to do 10 years ago. |
| |
| ▲ | rglullis 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Which results in them making more Not necessarily. You are assuming that the people can consume whatever is put in front of them. Markets get saturated fast. The "changes in the industry" mean nothing. |
|
|
| ▲ | RobertoG an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The price of oil at the price of water (ecology apart) should be a good thing. Automation should be, obviously, a good thing, because more is produced with less labor. What it says of ourselves and our politics that so many people (me included) are afraid of it? In a sane world, we would realize that, in a post-work world, the owner of the robots have all the power, so the robots should be owned in common. The solution is political. |
| |
| ▲ | dakolli an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Throughout history Empires have bet their entire futures on the predictions of seers, magicians and done so with enthusiasm. When political leaders think their court magicians can give them an edge, they'll throw the baby out with the bathwater to take advantage of it. It seems to me that the Machine Learning engineers and AI companies are the court magicians of our time. I certainly don't have much faith in the current political structures, they're uneducated on most subjects they're in charge of and taking the magicians at their word, the magicians have just gotten smarter and don't call it magic anymore. I would actually call it magic though, just actually real. Imagine explaining to political strategists from 100 years ago, the ability to influence politicians remotely, while they sit in a room by themselves a la dictating what target politicians see on their phones and feed them content to steer them in a certain directions.. Its almost like a synthetic remote viewing.. And if that doesn't work, you also have buckets of cash :| | |
| ▲ | K0balt 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | While I agree, I am not hopeful. The incentive alignment has us careening towards Elysium rather than Star Trek. |
|
|
| ▲ | hughw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Retail water[1] costs $881/bbl which is 13x the price of Brent crude. [1] https://www.walmart.com/ip/Aquafina-Purified-Drinking-Water-... |
| |
| ▲ | dakolli an hour ago | parent [-] | | What a good faith reply. If you sincerely believe this, that's a good insight into how dumb the masses are. Although I would expect a higher quality of reply on HN. You found the most expensive 8pck of water on Walmart. Anyone can put a listing on Walmart, its the same model as Amazon. There's also a listing right below for bottles twice the size, and a 32 pack for a dollar less. It cost $0.001 per gallon out of your tap, and you know this.. | | |
| ▲ | oliyoung 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm in South Australia, the driest state on the driest continent, we have a backup desalination plant and water security is common on the political agenda - water is probably as expensive here than most places in the world "The 2025-26 water use price for commercial customers is now $3.365/kL (or $0.003365 per litre)" https://www.sawater.com.au/my-account/water-and-sewerage-pri... | |
| ▲ | hughw 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Water just comes out of a tap? My household water comes from a 500 ft well on my property requiring a submersible pump costing $5000 that gets replaced ever 10-15 years or so with a rig and service that cost another 10k. Call it $1000/year... but it also requires a giant water softener, in my case a commercial one that amortizes out to $1000/year, and monthly expenditure of $70 for salt (admittedly I have exceptionally hard water). And of course, I, and your municipality too, don't (usually) pay any royalties to "owners" of water that we extract. Water is, rightly, expensive, and not even expensive enough. | | |
| ▲ | dakolli a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | You have a great source of water, which unfortunately for you cost you more money than the average, but because everyone else also has water that precious resource of yours isn't really worth anything if you were to try and go sell it. It makes sense why you'd want it to be more expensive, and that dangerous attitude can also be extrapolated to AI compute access. I think there's going to be a lot of people that won't want everyone to have plentiful access to the highest qualities of LLMs for next to nothing for this reason. If everyone has easy access to the same powerful LLMs that would just drive down the value you can contribute to the economy to next to nothing. For this reason I don't even think powerful and efficient open source models, which is usually the next counter argument people make, are necessarily a good thing. It strips people of the opportunity for social mobility through meritocratic systems. Just like how your water well isn't going to make your rich or allow you to climb a social ladder, because everyone already has water. | |
| ▲ | not_kurt_godel 3 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree water should probably be priced more in general, and it's certainly more expensive in some places than others, but neither of your examples is particularly representative of the sourcing relevant for data centers (scale and potability being different, for starters). |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | noshitsherlock an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, but a Stratocaster guitar is available to everybody too, but not everybody’s an Eric Clapton |
| |
| ▲ | noshitsherlock an hour ago | parent [-] | | I can buy the CD From the Cradle for pennies, but it would cost me hundreds of dollars to see Eric Clapton live |
|
|
| ▲ | wiredpancake an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |