• N3Cr0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    I predict a huge demand of workforce in five years, when they finally realized AI doesn’t drive innovation, but recycles old ideas over and over.

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      “Workforce” doesn’t produce innovation, either. It does the labor. AI is great at doing the labor. It excels in mindless, repetitive tasks. AI won’t be replacing the innovators, it will be replacing the desk jockeys that do nothing but update spreadsheets or write code. What I predict we’ll see is the floor dropping out of technical schools that teach the things that AI will be replacing. We are looking at the last generation of code monkeys. People joke about how bad AI is at writing code, but give it the same length of time as a graduate program and see where it is. Hell, ChatGPT has only been around since June of 2020 and that was the beta (just 13 years after the first iPhone, and look how far smartphones have come). There won’t be a huge demand for workforce in 5 years, there will be a huge portion of the population that suddenly won’t have a job. It won’t be like the agricultural or industrial revolution where it takes time to make it’s way around the world, or where this is some demand for artisanal goods. No one wants artisanal spreadsheets, and we are too global now to not outsource our work to the lowest bidder with the highest thread count. It will happen nearly overnight, and if the world’s governments aren’t prepared, we’ll see an unemployment crisis like never before. We’re still in “Fuck around.” “Find out” is just around the corner, though.

      • ozmot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        Even mindless and repetitive tasks require instances of problem solving far beyond what a.i is capable of. In order to replace 41% of the work force you’ll need a.g.i and we don’t know if thats even possible.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Let’s also not forget that execs are horrible at estimating work.

          “Oh this’ll just be a copy paste job right?” No you idiot this is a completely different system and because of xyz we can’t just copy everything we did on a different project.

        • richmondez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          We are walking talking general intelligence so we know it’s possible for them to exist, the question is more if we can implement one using existing computational technology.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’ve worked with humans, who have computer science degrees and 20 years of experience, and some of them have trouble writing good code and debugging issues, communicating properly, integrating with other teams / components.

        I don’t see “AI” doing this. At least not these LLM models everyone is calling AI today.

        Once we get to Data from Star Trek levels, then I can see it. But this is not that. This is not even close to that.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      but recycles old ideas over and over.

      I am so glad us humans don’t do that. It’s so nice going to a movie theater and seeing a truly original plot.

  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    In my experience, 100% of executives don’t actually know what their workforce does day-to-day, so it doesn’t really surprise me that they think they can lay people off because they started using ChatGPT to write their emails.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Well it’s good to know 59% of execs are aware that AI isn’t gonna change shit

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Some of that 59% might, but I guarantee at least some very strongly think it will change things, but think the change it brings will require as many people as before (if not more), but that they will be doing exponentially more with the people they have.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yes.

      The biggest factor in terms of job satisfaction is your boss.

      There’s a lot of bad bosses.

      AI will be an above average boss before the decade is out.

      You do the math.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Can’t wait for AI to replace all those useless execs and CEOs. It’s not like they even do much anyways, except fondling their stocks. They could probably be automated by a markov chain

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Don’t get a job in government contracting. Pretty much I do the work and around 5 people have suggestions. None of whom I can tell to fuck off directly.

      Submit the drawing. Get asked to make a change to align with a spec. Point out that we took exception to the spec during bid. Get asked to make the change anyway. Make the change. Get asked to make another change by someone higher up the chain of five. Point out change will add delays and cost. Told to do it anyway. Make the next change…

      Meanwhile every social scientist “we don’t know what is causing cost disease”

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    AI will (be a great excuse to) reduce workforce, say 41% of people who get bonuses if they do.

  • TheKrunkedJuan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    As someone scripting a lot for my department in the tech industry, yea AI and scripts have a lot of potential to reduce labor. However, given how chaotic this industry is, there will still need to be humans to take into account the variables that scripts and AI haven’t been trained on (or are otherwise hard to predict). I know the managers don’t wanna spend their time on these issues, as there’s plenty more for them to deal with. When there’s true AGI, that may be a different scenario, but time will tell.

    Currently, we need to have some people in each department overseeing the automations of their area. This stuff mostly kills the super redundant data entry tasks that make me feel cross eyed by the end of my shift. I don’t wanna be the embodiment of vlookup between pdfs and type the same number 4+ times.

  • bean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    And that means lower prices for consumers. Right? Guys… r… right?

  • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I never had the impression that there were enough people for the amount of work anyways. I don’t see jobs go, but shift. Most developers will be fine, because of never ending work, AI is just a tool speeding things up. But not that much, as someone who is good with Google and git, is just a bit slower to find the same answers. And AI needs verification too, even if it links you directly to the issue at hand, via source url.

    AI will create new issues. Some of the low level requirement jobs will go, like working in first level support, but only if you learn the AI yourself, else it’s too generic. We’re not there yet, where companies learn their own LLM yet. some outlier try.

    We got to understand that there’s still a human layer and a lot of people might prefer calling a human, even if the result is worse, simply because we’re social beings. This can cost a lot of customers, if companies believe they can just shove an AI in front.

    No one really knows how good AI will get. As the technology advances, we find more and more hard to solve issues, for instance that AI will make things up or gives wrong answers, despite knowing the real answer, if you pressure hard enough.

    Also for security reasons you can’t add AI everywhere, unless you want to send all secrets directly to Microsoft, Google or Facebook.

    My 5 cents.

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    What’s really interesting this time around is AI will cut middle management and paper pushers. Those are typically very good middle class jobs.

    Unlike manufacturing, those people really don’t have transferable skills. They can’t go become mechanics or plumbers.

    AI is going to hurt.