| ▲ | tripleee 5 hours ago |
| Will any careers exist? How do you even plan for that |
|
| ▲ | slg 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >How do you even plan for that The honest answer is via politics not education, but this debate is often had in "apolitical" circles that try their best to ignore this. |
|
| ▲ | socializer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They most certainly will, for at least two reasons. First, jobs aren't just about raw productivity, they're also about responsibility / liability diffusion. A CEO managing an army of agents is possibly on the hook if anything goes wrong - for example, if one of the agents does tax fraud or hacks a competitor. A CEO paying an army of employees, even if the employees are there just there to supervise agents, usually has little to worry about. The second reason is that we often prefer humans to do it even if a machine can do it faster / cheaper. Sometimes, it's a status thing. For example, some people will buy Ikea furniture, some will have it custom made by a local craftsman. In fact, it's sort of the hallmark of the upper middle class that you can spend more for that human touch. Cupcakes from an artisanal bakery, private banker, etc. Now, I don't think there's enough people who want to pay extra for human-made software. From the current trends in the industry, my impression is that we don't value our craft, so it would be surprising if others did. For mathematicians, I don't know; it's a bit painful to watch. |
| |
| ▲ | esperent 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > A CEO managing an army of agents is possibly on the hook if anything goes wrong - for example, if one of the agents does tax fraud or hacks a competitor This is correct under present day thinking. But imagine the accounting AI of twenty years hence. If it can reliably do the books, reduce and prevent fraud, significantly better than any human ever could, why would you still need the human in that loop? In the present day it's a legal requirement, not to mention a practical requirement given present AI capabilities. That doesn't mean it still will be in the future. To put it another way, if the human is on the hook for the agent, but the agent is proven by a decade+ of statistical evidence to be way less mistake/fraud prone than the human, what's the point of the human there? | | |
| ▲ | socializer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'll give you that the capabilities of LLMs are improving rapidly. Their safety, however, seems to be stuck in mid-2023. They're still easy to dupe and prone to cheating to solve problems. Prompt injection is still a thing, and it's still something we need to paper over with input and output classifiers and other hacks external to the LLM. What we're seeing so far is consistent with the training data being the upper bound for capabilities. They get better at recall / synthesis / reasoning over the corpus, but they don't, for example, acquire trans-human ethics; they're at best as ethical as we are, except not grounded by the fear of consequences. A perfectly-behaved, perfectly-moral LLM is not a given in 20 years, not unless your position is that there's room for unbounded, exponential self-improvement without any loss of fidelity. In that case, we'll probably have problems more pressing than the outlook for accounting jobs. | |
| ▲ | bot403 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm hearing "better" and "less" but not zero and none. The more interesting question is what happens when that rouge/hallucinating agent does commit that statistically unlikely fraud. Who is responsible then? Or is it now no low we just consider it an "accident", pay a small penalty, and move on? |
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | idiotsecant 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some careers that will undoubtedly exist are the 'human manipulation' trades: politicians, salespeople, con artists, religious leaders, basically anyone who convinces people to feed them. |
|
| ▲ | paul7986 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Universal Basic Income from all the Ai abundance. Is what Musk touts and since 2016, adding working will be optional. |
| |
| ▲ | bot403 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | A dark side of this is that a lot of unethical, deplorable, and amoral people who were otherwise occupied by jobs might suddenly have a lot more free time to make trouble instead of spending 1/3 of their day working for rent and food to survive. Not needing to work is a neat future that might be ahead of us. But it could unlock some new negatives as well as positives. | | |
|
