At some point, if most people lose their jobs, you have no market to sell your services to. So, either, new jobs have to be created in order to keep the capitalism machine running, or you have to provide for the needs of every human being from whatever you're doing with your AI. Otherwise, a lot of hungry people revolt and you have violence against these businesses.
I think new jobs will be created because AI is always limited by hardware and its current capabilities. Businesses, in order to compete, want to do things their competitors aren't currently doing. Those business needs always go beyond the current technological capabilities until the tech catches up and then they lather, rinse, repeat.
I found my best use of AI for writing code is with a TDD approach. I write 1 test, watch it fail, let the AI implement the solution, and then if I like it I commit. Write the next test and repeat.
It keeps me in the loop, I'm testing actual functionality rather than code, and my code is always in a state where I can open a PR and merge it back to main.
I realized a long time ago that you don't get promoted or recognized for the things you don't do. And many times not doing something is the best option of all.
Have AI explain the reasoning behind the PR. I don't think people really care about your step by step process but reviewers might care about your approach, design choices, caveats, and trade offs.
That context could clarify the problem, why the solution was chosen, key assumptions, potential risks, and future work.
For publicly traded companies the owners/shareholders are your grandparents, teachers, all sorts of regular people. You want to take a percentage of their already small net worth?
I'm sure it's a productive use of the already overburdened justice system's time to round up half the country, so they can sit in "jail" for a few minutes.
No shit. Maybe we let everyone with only a few seconds to serve just walk free without pursing a case on them at all. The people owning 90% of all stocks can serve 90% of all the sentencing and that'd be fine enough for society.
10% of Americans own about 90% of stocks. That's 34 million people you would have to put in jail (possibly for a few seconds or minutes each) who have nothing to do with the decisions being made in these companies. Go after the executives instead.
This position that no wrongdoing or illegal action can be discouraged because someone has to eat, or because it's "regular people" who have accountability because of who they decided to have manage their investments is getting old. Accountability has been diluted so much that no one is accountable. What about the people who are harmed, the victims, your grandparents, teachers, all sorts of regular people. Nothing is going to get better if we're constantly looking for the most appropriate person to place blame on. Maybe people should be paying more attention to the things they invest in/own.
Most people have no idea what they're invested in. Most are invested in mutual funds through their work or 401k. My point isn't that we shouldn't hold people accountable. My point is that going after owners/shareholders is not the solution we want because it hurts people who have nothing to do with what happened. We need to go after executives.
I’m active in local government - that’s how you make sure the school board is strong and the superintendent is the best candidate. But also voting is effective.
But there are no guarantees - except that those who wish to ban access to books are never to be trusted.
Interest rates are relatively high compared to what they were several years ago. When interest rates are low everyone and their dog gets hired because its cheap to do that. When interest rates are high companies need to be more selective and growth/risk taking decreases.
If we can somehow get inflation under control it will trigger lower interest rates and hiring will increase again. But the current, and possibly only, strategy is to stagnate wage growth and increase the number of people out of work so that the economy has less money circulating in order to reduce inflation.
I've lived through a few of these. Its definitely cyclical.
I've lived through a few of these now too, maybe not as many as you, I don't know, but...
I do think this time is a little bit different. I don't think a lot of these jobs are coming back. Maybe ever.
I'm not saying I'm some crazy woodland luddite maniac, I mean, I'll be tailscaling into the business VPS from the cabin... but... yeah, I think this time is a bit different. I think stuff like this has happened before with like "John Henry was a Steel Driving Man" sort of vibes? But a lot of people are going to try to out-machine the machines right now, and I think that's a losing strategy?
We'll see in 10 years, and I'm in a bit of a privileged position that I'm able to do this, so I don't envy the folks who are struggling right now? But, more concretely, I do think this is different. Interest rates are absolutely part of it, but there's so much deviation from the historical norms right now that I think normalcy bias is a loosing move.
Personally, I'm adapting - also, I'm playing with robots, but that's mostly because it's fun.
> Interest rates are relatively high compared to what they were several years ago.
And compared to last 50 years, Interest rates are still WAY lower, and unemployment is still WAY higher.
Make no mistake: Sure, the "curve" of unemployment trends downwards as interest rates drop [1]. But the "base" of unemployment is constantly increasing with each cycle [2]. There is no reality of unemployment rate going back to what it was before.
It's easy to be unaware of this pattern if one is constantly re-employed and never part of the 27-week unemployed graph, or if the point of reference is just the post-2000 or post-2008 crisis.
But 20% baseline of people who are unemployed more than 27 weeks. Let that sink in. It's pretty insane. And that baseline is only increasing.
What the OP commenter says has truth in data to it: Unemployment increase is not a linear scale of a working society. It's driven by tipping points where major changes happen (e.g. the current political changes in US).
I have it setup to be run autonomously as much as possible, the company will never go out of business (nothing is 100% but I will make sure to fight to the very end) cause I plan to just bulk buy servers once I have enough users. Lifetime currently should be up to 100 years, because it is low maintenance, I don't think server cost will affect stuff, but in future I plan to charge by 10 year period, but for now it should be 100 years.
I think new jobs will be created because AI is always limited by hardware and its current capabilities. Businesses, in order to compete, want to do things their competitors aren't currently doing. Those business needs always go beyond the current technological capabilities until the tech catches up and then they lather, rinse, repeat.
reply