-
Jim Kavanaugh, CEO of World Wide Technology, told CNBC that people are “too smart” to accept artificial intelligence won’t alter their work environment.
-
Business leaders shouldn’t “BS” employees about the impact of AI on jobs, Kavanaugh said, adding that they should be as transparent and honest as possible.
-
Kavanaugh, who has a net worth of $7 billion, stressed that overall he’s an optimist when it comes to AI and its ability to improve productivity.
It’s a “short term issue” … but the people without jobs? Living in desperate poverty?
THEY. ARE. PEOPLE. NOT. STATISTICS.
If you’re going to introduce disruptive technology that renders a huge fraction of the populace unemployable, or even that just relegates a huge fraction of the population into low-paid, low-quality jobs plan for them as well, not just the fucking billionaire bank accounts!
That means perhaps making the billionaires pay more tax, say, to provide a buffer for the disrupted people. They can buy their next superyacht a year or two later.
There are other jobs. Adapting and changing is part of life.
Every technologically advancement throughout history has resulted in the floor, ceiling, and median quality of life significantly advancing in short order. There isn’t a group who isn’t better off very quickly as a result of the change that was always inevitable.
Change isn’t bad.
Spoken like a true techbrodude that.
Change isn’t bad, absolutely. As long as you view people as statistics, not as human beings.
But when you’ve had the job that kept you and your family fed and comfortably housed for decades suddenly vanish on you, that’s a change that’s bad. When that change guts your finances so you have to move your family into a shithole tenement that squeezes you for rent while your food turns into cheap, mass-processed, nutritionally dubious pap.
This is doubly so if it happens on the tail end of your life so you’re not realistically able to be retrained and re-employed.
But those are just statistics. Just numbers that flow on a screen. While in reality there’s human misery you carefully look away from so that you can point to comforting numbers.
But here’s a question for you: if things are always better off after a change, why are the people who cheerlead for such change so super-against any attempts to mitigate the impacts with a small sliver of their benefits!?
You don’t just learn, get a job, and be set forever. That’s not the real world. It’s not supposed to be the real world. You develop yourself, apply that development to getting a job, then keep learning and keep developing yourself to be ready for the next opportunity.
The real world isn’t stable, and companies fail with or without technological advances. All your anecdotes are just that, and things that are happening every day with or without progress.
Less people will be starving in 2-3 years with every meaningful advance in tech. Progress makes the world a better place at every level of the ladder. The Luddites were terrible people actively working to make the world a worse place, to try to maintain their own monopoly. But a hell of a lot more people had access to warm clothes when their insane nonsense got put down and clothes became easy to mass produce.
Again, that isn’t LLMs because LLMs have functionally zero value. But even the poorest of the poor are better off when technology changes industry, and yes, new skilled jobs have always come back quickly.
It’s easy to hide behind simple statistics and I’m with you in the beginningAI can help increase efficiency to bring overall more people out of survival poverty. That’s excellent.
However, we’ve seen in the US at least, that the last decade or two of economic progress has been marked by an increase in service level jobs. Looking just slightly deeper shows us a decrease in solid middle class jobs, a decrease in typical income, a huge portion of people are worse off even if some overall stats are better. Then what happens if ai replaces driving and warehouse people and fast food? What’s left?
The last decade has been those “middle class” jobs moving to China/India and providing way more of them with jobs that pull them from starving to not starving.
You can debate policy stuff of offshoring and whatever, but globalization isn’t removing jobs. It’s moving them. It’s completely separate from technology making labor more efficient.
Tell me, how does sociopathy actually feel?
How does if feel ignoring the billions of future people you’re actively trying to fuck over by preventing progress that makes their life better, because you think helping people today by making their lives better is a bad thing?
Continuous learning is part of your responsibility as a human. Your one example of someone losing their job would be fine if there weren’t also thousands of other people starving who get better access to food by the same progress. Statistics are people. They’re just the people you’re ignoring to make the world a worse place.
That’s how sociopathy feels? Weird.
@conciselyverbose @ZDL We can’t wait until we change the rules to disincentivize predatory invasive tech
Every such change in the past has eventually resulted in vast improvements. However take a closer look at history and you’ll see that those disrupted mostly don’t recover, and it takes a couple generations to see the improvement. Those buggy whip manufacturers generally couldn’t get another job equivalent to theirs, and it wasn’t until their grandkids that people were overall better.
The AI revolution is theoretical so far so we can each offer whatever predictions we want. The thing is previous industrial revolutions replaced muscle: a machine can work harder and more continuously than people. However there always needed to be people. Each could do more with the help of the machine but there were so many things a machine couldn’t do that as efficiency improved it always opened more opportunity for people.
But what can people do that AI can’t? My prediction is to lump it in with other advanced automation. As automation gets smarter and smarter, there’s less need for people: the smart automation takes over more supervision. We know AI also has a place in creativity: that’s what generative ai is. It may be bad but it’s already on par with the dregs of the internet and will only get better. And we know that ai can make decisions: machine learning used to be central to ai until it worked.
Machines already took place of muscle and focus. various forms of smart automation and AI can start making inroads (and already have) on supervision, imagination, and decision making. Even if it doesn’t go far up those trees, most of the jobs are in the bottom branches. What type of role is left for humans that machines, automation or ai can’t handle? Theoretically not much is left.
Think back to the scare over self driving. If that works, that’s a huge safety and efficiency improvement, but it’s also millions of jobs. What else will those millions do, especially if other jobs at that level of skill are also being automated. It would be a huge disruption. If ai is able to take all the jobs predicted, that’s most of them and no one will have any better options. Even if it ushers in a new golden age, that will take a couple gneberations, and it might not if there’s no role left for humans that can’t be automated
Luckily ai sucks now. It does some amazing things and I’m in awe at recent progress. It does seem to have come far enough to be a useful tool in some places but luckily for us is far from being able to replace humans. However the potential is there, and approaching fast
Every one of them raised the floor very quickly. The increase in travel made way better quality of life available to way more people. But this isn’t the Middle Ages. You don’t need to enslave yourself to someone for a decade before you can get a new job.
LLMs can’t do anything. “AI” will eventually replace jobs, but LLMs (the current “AI” everyone is spending through the nose on) can’t actually do anything.
Self driving will be a great thing that saves lives exactly as quickly as it’s implemented. It’s not really connected at all to the current “AI” LLM bubble, though, because again, LLMs don’t work.