NormanEH said:

---

All those folks who were told "learn to code".
Sorry, your sql skills are no longer needed here. Can you sell coffee?

---

if you learned to code without learning how to be creative you were f'd from the start. Technical ability without creativity has always been low value, it's just becoming obvious now.

I've been able to start many r&d projects that previously required a much larger time window or budget to develop the software tools to capture what was needed. Now its a few days, and a glitch is fixed in an afternoon.

You still need to be able to read the code and have a good understanding of what is capable to generate a successful prompt

lb3 said:

---

As great as generative AI can be, I've not seen any real jobs replaced by it yet. Maybe some accountants are losing small business clients who decide to manage their own books perhaps.

But from what I've seen, most big companies are still trying to figure out the data security issues with AI and haven't really advanced past the test project stage. Anecdotal examples of sales people or managers using AI to draft emails isn't taking any jobs yet.

---

I think the coding companies have likely kicked the entry rung off the ladder already & some customer service spaces aren't replenishing, but I tend to think that like with most productivity tools the majority of companies will attrit rather than layoff.

As to email: it seems like low hanging fruit, but an email is far more complex than it seems on face value. My tone and content changes with audience, subject matter, surround context, etc. what's worse: a 3 month retention policy means that there's precious little training data to personalize off of. So a LLM just slops out some long winded generic bs. Writing prompts sufficient to get a good email would take longer than the email itself!

YouBet said:

---

lb3 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

lb3 said:

---

As great as generative AI can be, I've not seen any real jobs replaced by it yet. Maybe some accountants are losing small business clients who decide to manage their own books perhaps.

But from what I've seen, most big companies are still trying to figure out the data security issues with AI and haven't really advanced past the test project stage. Anecdotal examples of sales people or managers using AI to draft emails isn't taking any jobs yet.

---

This would mean that you don't believe any of these companies who have laid off people stating the direct reason being AI. Of course, they could simply be using AI as the excuse to cut labor which I think is valid in some cases.

The flip side of the equation is companies that have paused planned hiring due to AI. We did at my company. I was going to hire 3 people; hired 1 instead because of AI.

---

I don't believe companies have made anyone redundant at this stage with the possible exception being online chatbots improving enough that there are noticeably fewer calls to the call centers but that doesn't account for the layoffs we've seen.

We have an AI team at work and most of our projects have focused on making us faster and more responsive. The project I was helping lead got shut down when we couldn't figure out how to incorporate partner data without crossing streams.

---

My personal opinion is that a lot of these layoffs are happing in the anticipation that AI will make these jobs redundant even though it hasn't yet. Companies are trying to justify the massive capital expenditures it's going to take ramp up AI and so cutting headcount is in line with that intended strategy. I think someone else actually already stated this opinion but it's also mine.

In addition, there has been an entire script flipping by corporate America since Covid. Pre-Covid corporate America was focused on growth at all costs (revenue). Post-Covid companies flipped back to the bottom line (profitability). The easiest way to cut costs is shedding headcount.

Companies (especially big tech) were also hoarding talent during covid because it was an employee market and companies were panicking about keeping people. That has ended now and these companies no longer feel they need to hoard talent. During covid, my Big Corp company (different from startup I already mentioned) was losing people to Google and MS for absolutely absurd compensation that we could not remotely match. They were poaching anyone they could get their hands on that was remotely qualified. Some of those people have since been laid off and are now stuck in employment purgatory.

---

Good post, I agree with you on all points.
No layoffs directly because of AI doing something that people did, but these cos are buying AI infra that needs money and they pay for it by laying people off and calling it "AI". You got it.

3 years ago, the CEO of the company I worked in said exactly this - that WS was now focusing on proft, no longer revenue. This he said to justify a layoff. Subsequently he got fired himself though.

infinity ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

lb3 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

lb3 said:

---

As great as generative AI can be, I've not seen any real jobs replaced by it yet. Maybe some accountants are losing small business clients who decide to manage their own books perhaps.

But from what I've seen, most big companies are still trying to figure out the data security issues with AI and haven't really advanced past the test project stage. Anecdotal examples of sales people or managers using AI to draft emails isn't taking any jobs yet.

---

This would mean that you don't believe any of these companies who have laid off people stating the direct reason being AI. Of course, they could simply be using AI as the excuse to cut labor which I think is valid in some cases.

The flip side of the equation is companies that have paused planned hiring due to AI. We did at my company. I was going to hire 3 people; hired 1 instead because of AI.

---

I don't believe companies have made anyone redundant at this stage with the possible exception being online chatbots improving enough that there are noticeably fewer calls to the call centers but that doesn't account for the layoffs we've seen.

We have an AI team at work and most of our projects have focused on making us faster and more responsive. The project I was helping lead got shut down when we couldn't figure out how to incorporate partner data without crossing streams.

---

My personal opinion is that a lot of these layoffs are happing in the anticipation that AI will make these jobs redundant even though it hasn't yet. Companies are trying to justify the massive capital expenditures it's going to take ramp up AI and so cutting headcount is in line with that intended strategy. I think someone else actually already stated this opinion but it's also mine.

In addition, there has been an entire script flipping by corporate America since Covid. Pre-Covid corporate America was focused on growth at all costs (revenue). Post-Covid companies flipped back to the bottom line (profitability). The easiest way to cut costs is shedding headcount.

Companies (especially big tech) were also hoarding talent during covid because it was an employee market and companies were panicking about keeping people. That has ended now and these companies no longer feel they need to hoard talent. During covid, my Big Corp company (different from startup I already mentioned) was losing people to Google and MS for absolutely absurd compensation that we could not remotely match. They were poaching anyone they could get their hands on that was remotely qualified. Some of those people have since been laid off and are now stuck in employment purgatory.

---

Good post, I agree with you on all points.
No layoffs directly because of AI doing something that people did, but these cos are buying AI infra that needs money and they pay for it by laying people off and calling it "AI". You got it.

3 years ago, the CEO of the company I worked in said exactly this - that WS was now focusing on proft, no longer revenue. This he said to justify a layoff. Subsequently he got fired himself though.

---

I've shared before but on the revenue/profit focus - I've lived it. My department's #1 metric was growing revenue. There was zero focus on profitability. None. We didn't even look at it. I analyzed it and tracked it on my own because it was under my purview, but I was never asked to produce it in all of the years I was there. When I would volunteer it or suggest ways we should improve it, I either got blank stares or brushed aside. I retired during covid.

The people I hired back then now run the department. They tell me their #1 metric is now profitability and that's all that matters. Growth mode is dead.

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

They are using AI to -- hopefully -- become more efficient.

Humans are not efficient.

Missouri needs to primary Hawley. The dude is not even a moderate, but a full fledged liberal on tons of economic issues. He has that toxic DC lawyer mindset that policy crafted to address complex issues will never have unintended consequences, which has been proven wrong over and over and over.

BTKAG97 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

They are using AI to -- hopefully -- become more efficient.

Humans are not efficient.

---

Then what good are these companies except for the very top of them that will benefit?

AI is a serious issue that needs to be hemmed in. It cannot be allowed to remove humans from the economy in huge swaths. You want to see revolution, that's how you'll get it: take away people's livelihoods, dignity, and reasons for existing.

AI needs to be strongly curbed, and companies that reduce their human workforces in favor of AI need to be taxed, heavily, if we're headed towards a society that values AI over people.

Waffledynamics said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

They are using AI to -- hopefully -- become more efficient.

Humans are not efficient.

---

Then what good are these companies except for the very top of them that will benefit?

AI is a serious issue that needs to be hemmed in. It cannot be allowed to remove humans from the economy in huge swaths. You want to see revolution, that's how you'll get it: take away people's livelihoods, dignity, and reasons for existing.

AI needs to be strongly curbed, and companies that reduce their human workforces in favor of AI need to be taxed, heavily, if we're headed towards a society that values AI over people.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine

ts5641 said:

---

Good! **** AI! At some point do you just do what's better for human beings rather than corporate efficiency?

---

The companies I'm invested in better be concerned with maximizing returns.

torrid said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

They are using AI to -- hopefully -- become more efficient.

Humans are not efficient.

---

Then what good are these companies except for the very top of them that will benefit?

AI is a serious issue that needs to be hemmed in. It cannot be allowed to remove humans from the economy in huge swaths. You want to see revolution, that's how you'll get it: take away people's livelihoods, dignity, and reasons for existing.

AI needs to be strongly curbed, and companies that reduce their human workforces in favor of AI need to be taxed, heavily, if we're headed towards a society that values AI over people.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine

---

Very funny. This is not even remotely equivalent.

texagbeliever said:

---

YouBet said:

---

lb3 said:

---

As great as generative AI can be, I've not seen any real jobs replaced by it yet. Maybe some accountants are losing small business clients who decide to manage their own books perhaps.

But from what I've seen, most big companies are still trying to figure out the data security issues with AI and haven't really advanced past the test project stage. Anecdotal examples of sales people or managers using AI to draft emails isn't taking any jobs yet.

---

This would mean that you don't believe any of these companies who have laid off people stating the direct reason being AI. Of course, they could simply be using AI as the excuse to cut labor which I think is valid in some cases.

The flip side of the equation is companies that have paused planned hiring due to AI. We did at my company. I was going to hire 3 people; hired 1 instead because of AI.

---

Is 1 person able to do the work of 3?

I think the in vogue executive measuring stick at the moment is GM/SGA. The easiest way to improve that metric is to lower headcount. That is what we are seeing.

---

AI already allows me to write code, create policies, analyze data across SaaS systems, and generate detailed security reports with ease.

With the right tools, I can easily increase my productivity fivefold. The challenge is that, eventually, AGI will replace me too. It won't need correction; it will be self-sufficient, exponentially faster, and far beyond human capability.

AGI will change everything. Every aspect of our lives will be affected. What's coming is the most profound technological shift in human history, and that's not an exaggeration.

The problem is that most people don't see how rapidly this transformation is unfolding. For every advancement or problem AI solves, it will also create new challenges; offensive security being just one example.

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

The reality is that companies that used to hire 10 college grad analysts every year are now hiring 2 college grad analyst that know how to use Grok well and check for hallucinations. That and customer support interfaces are the real values of AI right now to businesses.

Waffledynamics said:

---

torrid said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

They are using AI to -- hopefully -- become more efficient.

Humans are not efficient.

---

Then what good are these companies except for the very top of them that will benefit?

AI is a serious issue that needs to be hemmed in. It cannot be allowed to remove humans from the economy in huge swaths. You want to see revolution, that's how you'll get it: take away people's livelihoods, dignity, and reasons for existing.

AI needs to be strongly curbed, and companies that reduce their human workforces in favor of AI need to be taxed, heavily, if we're headed towards a society that values AI over people.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine

---

Very funny. This is not even remotely equivalent.

---

Very equivalent. Everything in bold was said about industrialization.

Tell you what. A challenge...

You tell me how you think it is different and I will find a parallel from the industrial revolution that proves you wrong. The world was better in most ways after the industrial revolution and the same will probably be true of AI. If it doesn't kill us (not a joke).

Over_ed said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

torrid said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

They are using AI to -- hopefully -- become more efficient.

Humans are not efficient.

---

Then what good are these companies except for the very top of them that will benefit?

AI is a serious issue that needs to be hemmed in. It cannot be allowed to remove humans from the economy in huge swaths. You want to see revolution, that's how you'll get it: take away people's livelihoods, dignity, and reasons for existing.

AI needs to be strongly curbed, and companies that reduce their human workforces in favor of AI need to be taxed, heavily, if we're headed towards a society that values AI over people.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine

---

Very funny. This is not even remotely equivalent.

---

Very equivalent. Everything in bold was said about industrialization.

Tell you what. A challenge...

You tell me how you think it is different and I will find a parallel from the industrial revolution that proves you wrong. The world was better in most ways after the industrial revolution and the same will probably be true of AI. If it doesn't kill us (not a joke).

---

We're talking about the theoretical elimination of most human jobs as an end game. They are not comparable.

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

Lol there ARE companies using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount. The people they are firing were mostly useless anyways, a la twitter, and companies usually get some sort of market boost when they say they can use AI. Very few are actually using AI in any productive capacity.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

torrid said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

They are using AI to -- hopefully -- become more efficient.

Humans are not efficient.

---

Then what good are these companies except for the very top of them that will benefit?

AI is a serious issue that needs to be hemmed in. It cannot be allowed to remove humans from the economy in huge swaths. You want to see revolution, that's how you'll get it: take away people's livelihoods, dignity, and reasons for existing.

AI needs to be strongly curbed, and companies that reduce their human workforces in favor of AI need to be taxed, heavily, if we're headed towards a society that values AI over people.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine

---

Very funny. This is not even remotely equivalent.

---

Very equivalent. Everything in bold was said about industrialization.

Tell you what. A challenge...

You tell me how you think it is different and I will find a parallel from the industrial revolution that proves you wrong. The world was better in most ways after the industrial revolution and the same will probably be true of AI. If it doesn't kill us (not a joke).

---

We're talking about the theoretical elimination of most human jobs as an end game. They are not comparable.

---

That's a failed theory. You don't have to go far down that path to see that it fails. Do the math, you'll see.

Please explain.

If only AI could replace non-essential government employees.

Do AI agents need a living wage?

ts5641 said:

---

Good! **** AI! At some point do you just do what's better for human beings rather than corporate efficiency?

---

What is the constitutional basis for this bill? Where does Congress have the ability to regulate businesses in general?

Waffledynamics said:

---

Please explain.

---

We already know the current AI tech doesn't scale, hence Sam Altman already talking about government assistance. Where would these proposed tax dollars come from?

Answer: It's not there. The government is already cash strapped at the moment.

So why worry about a bunch of tech nerds blathering about some pie in the sky utopia that they can't afford to build in the first place?

ntxVol said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Please explain.

---

We already know the current AI tech doesn't scale, hence Sam Altman already talking about government assistance. Where would these proposed tax dollars come from?

Answer: It's not there. The government is already cash strapped at the moment.

So why worry about a bunch of tech nerds blathering about some pie in the sky utopia that they can't afford to build in the first place?

---

I hope you're right and that it stays a pie in the sky idea.

Did you have the same argument when PCs hit the market?

Waffledynamics said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

torrid said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Do y'all think companies are just using AI as an excuse to reduce headcount?

---

They are using AI to -- hopefully -- become more efficient.

Humans are not efficient.

---

Then what good are these companies except for the very top of them that will benefit?

AI is a serious issue that needs to be hemmed in. It cannot be allowed to remove humans from the economy in huge swaths. You want to see revolution, that's how you'll get it: take away people's livelihoods, dignity, and reasons for existing.

AI needs to be strongly curbed, and companies that reduce their human workforces in favor of AI need to be taxed, heavily, if we're headed towards a society that values AI over people.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine

---

Very funny. This is not even remotely equivalent.

---

Very equivalent. Everything in bold was said about industrialization.

Tell you what. A challenge...

You tell me how you think it is different and I will find a parallel from the industrial revolution that proves you wrong. The world was better in most ways after the industrial revolution and the same will probably be true of AI. If it doesn't kill us (not a joke).

---

We're talking about the theoretical elimination of most human jobs as an end game. They are not comparable.

---

The industrial revolution greatly reduced all then current jobs - from share farmer up to skilled artisans. Yes those jobs were replaced with others.

But from the point of view of the replaced farmer, weaver, the hand-craftsmen etc. these new, replacement, jobs were generally out of reach.

The essence of middle-upper class, the guilds, were literally wiped out because they tried to slow down industrialization instead of embracing it. With laws and rules focused on protecting their workers.

So, entrepreneurs moved to the countryside, where their factories could operate without interference.

Sound familiar at all? What's going to happen if we make AI "hard" in the US?

Those that don't understand history are...

I think between AI and robots many jobs will be gone in the next 20 years, which SHOULD lead to more ability to consume by all. China will not be slowed by our laws, nor India. It is analogous to tariffs, if you want the US do be competitive in the world - well you have to let it compete.

Quote:

---

I think between AI and robots many jobs will be gone in the next 20 years, which SHOULD lead to more ability to consume by all.

---

Consume with what money that is coming from where?

Consumption isn't the only thing people need jobs for. They fulfill multiple social and psychological needs that people have.

Your example of the artisans vs factories falls short when the end goal is supposedly the elimination of huge swaths of jobs by people. Those factories needed people to run them. The goal of AI for many is to replace people entirely.

There will will be a lot of jobs, but I do expect much higher unemployment. So I think your fears are a little overblown, but have an element of truth. Addressing the rest:

From my economics perspective:

All consumables should greatly decrease in price. This is Elon's view and I mostly agree with him. Look at Tv's drop in price over the past 10 years and apply that to all consumer goods. That side looks good to with AI.

Real estate is a medium term problem. Eventually us boomers dying should help a lot, but that means at least 10'ish more years of short supply.

Taxes--OOF. Don't have an answer, but imo we come out better keeping companies here than sending them all overseas. But that requires us to be competitive on AI.


From my "humanity" perspective:

At one time most human behavior was taught in home, then schools, then employment. Looks like we might be going to be 0 for 3 there? :-)

To be honest, parents not parenting is a lot bigger concern to me than people not learning professional behavior in a work environment. Assuming things were to get as bad as you are assuming. I have no answer if a job is needed for personal growth. Maybe? I hope not.

captkirk said:

---

Do AI agents need a living wage?

---

They do it for the thrill of the chase.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Quote:

---

I think between AI and robots many jobs will be gone in the next 20 years, which SHOULD lead to more ability to consume by all.

---

Consume with what money that is coming from where?

Consumption isn't the only thing people need jobs for. They fulfill multiple social and psychological needs that people have.

Your example of the artisans vs factories falls short when the end goal is supposedly the elimination of huge swaths of jobs by people. Those factories needed people to run them. The goal of AI for many is to replace people entirely.

---

Huge swaths of jobs were replaced by John Deere in the last 100 years. Where did those people go and why didn't the world collapse? What happened? Food got cheaper and people learned how to repair John Deere tractors for big bucks instead of poverty wages working in the fields. Society as a whole improved.