Remix.run Logo
vitorfblima 5 hours ago

We're talking about ALL labor.

yunwal 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

AI is not cutting my hair anytime soon. AI is not making my meals anytime soon. It's not organizing events, or doing anything in the real world. It's not doing my open heart surgery. Robots are still doing this in 2026

https://www.news.com.au/sport/carnage-at-start-of-robot-mara...

We might have to get off the computer, and we might have to rethink how we organize the world economically, but there is still work to be done everywhere.

dofm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> AI is not cutting my hair anytime soon.

This is an absolutely bizarre pitch for labour replacement for the very obvious reason that the rate at which the world's hair grows is not going to increase and nor are we going to suddenly discover a great need for new high maintenance hair styles to increase the work available.

There are clearly at a first approximation enough barbers and hairdressers already to cut the world's hair at the rate it is growing.

yunwal 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, are there enough doctors? seems really weird that you left out the other jobs I mentioned

dofm an hour ago | parent [-]

They are all actually quite a lot like the barbers/hairdressers thing! We're more or less getting along with who we have.

Essentially every single medical school in the USA is vastly oversubscribed with qualified applicants, as far as I am aware. And most specialist residencies are too.

But you know you can't just become a doctor, right? You don't just lose your job and become a doctor, or a trained nurse the next day. That is a ten, twelve year lead time thing for doctors, two or three for a nurse, and it favours the young. People who lose their jobs mid career essentially never become doctors. Some do become nurses, but it still favours the young.

Plus, even if there is a shortage beyond that, and in general pratice there is, we don't need hundreds of millions more doctors around the world, I suspect, but that is how many jobs AI threatens to displace according to the FUD. We maybe need a few tens of millions more nurses.

And if you expand the healthcare and training system to train up and employ more people — where does the money for that come from?

People who simultaneously go along with the idea AGI will eliminate large swathes of human labour but somehow magically think everyone will find a new job so there is no retail and service demand collapse or tax revenue collapse are everywhere, serving up the tractor analogy, which is where we started in this thread. It's horseshit.

vitorfblima 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm on board with what you're saying, but that's not what I'm going for. Right now, "Markets" need to believe that future nannies will be robots

gruez 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you think the average dirt farmer in the 1800 is going to be assuaged by the prospect of almost all farm work being mechanized, because he can be a "medical and health services manager" or "data scientist" instead?

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/fastest-growing.htm

justonepost2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In this case there is, by definition, no “medical and health services manager” or “data scientist” in the future. Nothing comes next.

yunwal 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> "by definition"

Who's definition are we talking about here

justonepost2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The definition of AGI?

yunwal 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Nobody has mentioned AGI in this thread until this comment. And either way, there's no evidence that AGI as you're defining it is going to be solved anytime soon. Sam Altman and Dario may claim it will to pump their incoming IPOs, but outside of la la land, OpenAI and Anthropic aren't making any big robotics plays, which leaves a huge chunk of the "G" in AGI completely unattended to.

dofm 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Literally Sam and Dario's.

yunwal 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, the 2 CEOs want investors to believe their technology is all-powerful. Is that assessment worth anything?

dofm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I wasn't saying it is or isn't.

But it unambiguously is who is leading the promise to replace labour; it is whose bullshit is provoking the backlash.

It is whose variously-confident definition of near-term AGI involves completely eliminating a large enough shar of jobs that Altman thinks he has to talk about UBI and fund pilot studies so he doesn't lose all his cool California friends.

It is who has set the tone for the entire punditsphere and everyone who emulates them.

Their definition is the one the media and governments have swallowed; they need the fear so they get regulatory capture.

I will tell you that I think though: I think Sam Altman should be nowhere near the power and proximity to power that he has, band I think Dario Amodei would be better off tucked away in a research unit where the only person who has to listen to him tolkien bollocks is his immediate boss.

I think they are manipulating truly grotesque amounts of fear that are in many ways worse than the fear we felt in the COVID pandemic, and I think they are doing it for money and power.

But I also think people have listened and the message has not got through to tech people that they aren't good people and they are fucking weird.

AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"By definition"? If you define that to be the future, yes. But that's the problem with vitorfblima's statement upthread. Are we talking about all labor? That's still a very big, unproven assumption. It's an assumption that I question. And given that I don't buy the premise, I don't buy the conclusions, either.

And the farm analogy is somewhat on point. We went from 67% of people working on farms to... I think it's more like 3% than 1%, but a very small amount. That's two thirds of labor being replaced.

dofm 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Where does this agricultural labour point come from?

It's so common here and so obviously wobbly. That labour was displaced (and in most cases into way more gruelling and dangerous factory work).

The AI pitch is that the giant superbrain will do all the knowledge work and rapidly self-improve faster than humans (and therefore, do more future jobs we could do). That is a pitch for replacing human labour.

You can't simultaneously have a machine that is said to be likely to wipe out entire categories — not market sectors, categories of work — and then say that all those people will get jobs elsewhere. Because, where? The timescales they are talking about are short. Where's the work going to come from in time?

justonepost2 4 hours ago | parent [-]

As far as I can tell many people, especially tech practitioners, are as a whole desperate to believe that there is an iron law of the universe that “technological progress” is always a net good. Maybe there are some bumps along the way, but you can’t make an omelette…

The next couple of years will see these people contorting themselves into increasingly complex knots to try and argue that AI is making the world a better place. The arguments will get far weirder, and far more detached from reality, than bad comparisons to agricultural labor.

dofm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The next couple of years will see these people contorting themselves into increasingly complex knots to try and argue that AI is making the world a better place.

I mean, if it delivers. So far we're only really f**ing ourselves in the face; outside the tech industry everyone else is figuring out how to push back on AI.

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
dofm 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's a dirt farmer?

alamortsubite 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As opposed to a moisture farmer, presumably: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aran_Islands#History

If you're never seen Man of Aran, you're in for a treat! Far more thought provoking than the fluff Lucas made, but by which I always assumed his fictional homestead on Tatooine was inspired.

vitorfblima 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You guessed it.

watwut 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What I do think is that your comparison have squat zero with history, society or tech of 1800. People like to make historical comparisons based on pure fantasies and this is one of them.

phantompeace 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you really think an LLM will replace a surgeon?

phantompeace 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why are we believing in marketing lies? For instance, crypto is useful (in a narrow context) even if it's 99.99% scams, and has positively impacted at least some people (the unbanked), even if it fell short of replacing the world's banking system. It's good tech.

Similarly with LLMs, it's good tech, but I do not believe for a single second that these things will ever replace anyone who is remotely skilled. People will be augmented by them. They won't be fully replaced. Well, I hope not anyway.

HarHarVeryFunny 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not?

Surgeons already perform remote surgery, so physical dexterity isn't the issue.

What do you think the moat is? Computer vision? Surgical technique? Surgical knowledge? Medical knowledge?

Maybe surgeons will be smart enough not to allow AI to be trained to do what they do, but it seems that training data is the only real barrier.

dieselgate 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think so but it will not stop folks from trying. The panacea of AI is AGI which basically, in theory, will replace any human/thing.

esafak 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surgery is a regulated field with high barriers to entry. Even if surgeons did not get replaced, displaced humans in other fields would not find employment in surgery.