336
99% of CEOs Expect AI-Driven Layoffs in the Next Two Years (gizmodo.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 3 months ago (11 children)

LLMs are not and will never be good enough to replace human labor. Augment it, sure, and that could lead to fewer jobs but that's not generally what happens. They are, however, good enough for execs to think they can replace human labor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    They don't have to be as good to replace us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It even can be a feature if AI isn't as good as the people they are replacing. For example, in the case of call centers/help lines, it might be more desirable to have a shitty system to discourage callers yet have plausible deniability…

    I find I'm referencing Cory Doctorow a lot lately…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I had a funny "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" moment the other day... when reflecting that LLMs mean I don't learn the details of Rust, or Python, or Perl, or VLC plugins, or systemd service configuration files, or anything like that anymore - I just learn how to work with the LLM to ensure that we are getting the results we need from the tech of the moment.

    It reminded me of the stasis - clone - transfer doctors in Down and Out, anything complicated they just reach for the "ultimate solution to everything" rather than trying to be good at all the specialty surgeries and other skills that old fashioned doctors used to study.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The AI doesn't need to be better than the professional it's replacing, it just needs to be more cost effective than the barely capable outsourced worker the jobs was going to be given anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Not really, because when an employee fails their task it's the employee's responsibility, and if it's catastrophic enough it can lead to firings or lawsuits. But as soon as it's a chatbot, the liability fully rests on the company. How long will insurance protect those companies too?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The AI won't replace labor, automation/robotics will do that. AI will provide the brain to operate the automation properly. We've had the automation for a long time, the AI is making the difference.

    They are working very hard on the intersection of AI and Automation to replace human labor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    A nail gun won't replace roofers, but it does mean you need less of them.

    A mail truck doesn't replace the postman, but compared to the walking postman - the truck enables fewer mailmen to deliver more mail.

    A C++ compiler doesn't replace the programmer, but it does enable one programmer to do the work of 10 assembly code programmers.

    LLMs are going to be another "force multiplier" tool, in certain fields - when used correctly which not everybody will do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent