Short term yes; long term probably not. All the dipshit c-suites pushing the “AI” worker replacement initiatives are going to destroy their workforces and then realize that LLMs can’t actually reliably replace any of the workers they fired. And I love that for management.
They’re gonna realize the two jobs it can actually replace is HR and the C suite.
And neither of those two groups will allow themselves to be replaced.
Yeah, HR gets by because of legal compliance, and execs get by through convincing the board to give them X years, and then jump to the next one.
Lol AI cannot replace either of those jobs. “I’m sorry I can’t help with your time off request but here is a gluten free recipe for a pie that feeds 30 people.”
You’re right, that sounds better than the average HR rep.
And better than the average pie 😋
“Help” with a time-off request?
Here’s the help:
Sure!
It won’t replace any jobs entirely, it will just reduce the number of people needed for each job.
Not that there’s much difference if you’re the one being made redundant.
Well at least you’d get a recipe
I’d unironically like that recipe, please
Ingredients: 1 potato
Steps:
Cut into 30 prices and serve
I bet project managers could be replaced with AI super easily, I mean all they have to do is respond to all messages with 👍
deleted by creator
At least then the project plan would get updated and tasks opened on time…
It can potentially allow 1 worker to do the job of 10. For 9 of those workers, they have been replaced. I don’t think they will care that much for the nuance that they technically weren’t replaced by AI, but by 1 co-worker who is using AI to be more efficient.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that we won’t have enough jobs any more, because when in human history have we ever become more efficient and said “ok, good enough, let’s just coast now”? We will just increase the ambition and scope of what we will build, which will require more workers working more efficiently.
But that still really sucks because it’s not going to be the same exact jobs and it will require re-training. These disruptions are becoming more frequent in human history and it is exhausting.
We still need to spread these gains so we can all do less and also help those whose lives have been disrupted. Unfortunately that doesn’t come for free. When workers got the 40 hour work week it was taken by force.
My colleagues are starting to use AI, it just makes their code worse and harder to review. I honestly can’t imagine that changing, AI doesn’t actually understand anything.
This comment has similar vibes to a boomer in the 80s saying that the Internet is useless and full of nothing but nerds arguing on forums, and he doesn’t see that changing.
Probably. I’m just not seeing it actually doing any logic or problem solving. It’s a pattern matching machine today. A new technology could certainly happen.
Do you know what pattern matching is great for? Finding commonly cited patterns in long debug log messages. LLMs are great for brainstorming problem solving. They’re basically word granularity search engines, so they’re great for looking things up are more niche knowledge that document search engines fail on. If the thing you’re trying to look up doesn’t exist, it will make shit up so you need to cross reference everything, but it’s still incredibly helpful. Pattern matching is also great for boilerplate. I use the codium extension and it comes up with auto complete suggestions that don’t have much logic, but save a good amount of key strokes.
I didn’t think the foundational tech of LLMs are going to get substantially better, but we will develop programming patterns that make them more robust and reliable.
You’re referring to something that is changing and getting better constantly. In the long term LLMs are going to be even better than they are now. It’s ridiculous to think that it won’t be able to replace any of the workers that were fired. LLMs are going to allow 1 person to do the job of multiple people. Will it replace all people? No. But even if it allows 1 person to do the job of 2 people, that’s 50% of the workforce unemployed. This isn’t even mentioning how good robotics have gotten over the past 10 years.
You must have one person constantly checking for hallucinations in everything that is generated: how is that going to be faster?
Sure you sort of need that at the moment (not actually everything, but I get your hyperbole), but you seem to be working under the assumption that LLMs are not going to improve beyond what they are now. It is still very much in its infancy, and as the tech matures this will be less and less until it only requires few people to manage LLMs that solve the tasks of a much larger work force.
It’s hard to improve when the data in is human and the data out cannot be error checked back against its own data in. It’s like trying to solve a math problem with two calculators that both think 2+2 = 6 because the data they were given said that it’s true.
(not actually everything, but I get your hyperbole)
How is it hyperbole? All artificial neural networks have “hallucinations”, no matter their size. What’s your magic way of knowing when that happens?
LLMs now are trained on data generated by other LLMs. If you look at the “writing prompt” stuff 90% is machine generated (or so bad that I assume it’s machine generated) and that’s the data that is being bought right now.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Short term? Sure.
Long term? Not a chance that equation works out favorably.
But then again, c-suites these days only seem to give a shit about short-term implications.
That’s not what is going to happen. Copilot will simply increase productivity over, and where before they needed 10 people, gradually, through attrition they will need only 9, then 8, and so on. That does not mean higher unemployment though, it means more product.
-
“AI means there will be fewer people required to do the same amount of work”
-
“this does not mean higher unemployment”
I think you left out a steep off reasoning there. At least, I don’t follow.
When productivity increases (as it has been doing for ages) the manufacturing output increases. That’s what normally happens.
But the amount of workers will only stay the same if demand grows at the same rate as the production output.
Well, the price goes down, or/end the salaries go up, or resources are freed for new investments…
Only in the last case there is a chance that the amount of jobs will remain the same, the other cases will lead to lost jobs.
Prices going down leads to increased demand and expansion. Salaries (everywhere) going up lead to increased demand and expansion.
-
Businesses want to grow, not keep stable. They might fire a few ppl in the short term, but in the long term it’s more likely the group of 10 would just do now the work of a 12-13 group with AI, producing hugher outputs for the same money they were getting before, meaning extra profit for the shareholders.
That’s exactly what I meant by
That does not mean higher unemployment though, it means more product.
Microsoft argues that its AI automation will remove the boring bits of jobs instead of replacing jobs entirely.
Simple question: does the Microsoft HR department agree?
HR has been replaced by AI and it agrees that AI is great.
KOLANAAAK!
No. But expect to do more work for the same pay since things are slightly easier now with AI.
Depends. Are you this guy?
You physically take the specs from the customer to the engineers? Well… No.
There’s actually a someone I work with that’s basically that. Essentially, their job is to communicate across teams to coordinate product releases. They’re not involved in deciding what’s in those releases, they just needs to know what’s going in each one and when it’s happening. They also do something with budget approvals.
Basically, they just look at Jira and spreadsheets, and I didn’t think they really make changes to either. We could 100% do without that role, at least from my perspective.
Then again, we’re not worried about job security here. We have good funding, we’re expanding our team, and my boss is generally against AI. But if I had to suggest someone to let go, it would be that person. It’s a really weird role and they don’t really have any unique skills, but whatever.
Our jobs have always been at risk from outsourcing.
Fortunately, they don’t (currently) appear to be good at it.
As long as there’s risk and liability, firable employees will be better.
Meanwhile, I’m at my job trying to get an instance of a machine that can automatically SFTP somewhere as part of a script like it’s 1998 and I need a shell account from my dialup connection.
Working on legacy systems is nice sometimes. So far removed from the techbro bullshit
HR will transition to HAIR then finally AIR.
Microsoft argues that its AI automation will remove the boring bits of jobs instead of replacing jobs entirely.
This argument is such bullshit. As if Microsoft doesn’t know there exist jobs that are entirely “the boring bits”.
That is very true, especially when it comes to any administrative task. However I’d argue that these jobs are less likely to be replaced, as these jobs are born out of a system that is favoring bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy over efficiency. Challenging that system would result in a shift in the power dynamics, often towards subordinates, which, of course, wouldn’t really be accepted by leading positions.
live customer service over the phone will disappear but that’s about it
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Microsoft will soon allow businesses and developers to build AI-powered Copilots that can work like virtual employees and perform tasks automatically.
Instead of Copilot sitting idle waiting for queries, it will be able to do things like monitor email inboxes and automate a series of tasks or data entry that employees normally have to do manually.
It’s a big change in the behavior of Copilot in what the industry commonly calls AI agents, or the ability for chatbots to intelligently perform complex tasks autonomously.
Microsoft’s argument that it only wants to reduce the boring bits of your job sounds idealistic for now, but with the constant fight for AI dominance between tech companies, it feels like we’re increasingly on the verge of more than basic automation.
You can build Microsoft’s Copilot agents with the ability to flag certain scenarios for humans to review, which will be useful for more complex queries and data.
We constantly see AI fail on basic text prompts, provide incorrect answers to queries, or add extra fingers to images, so do businesses and consumers really trust it enough to automate tasks in the background?
The original article contains 842 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Shut up, AI
Probably worth noting that this bot uses LSA and, at least as I understand it, is quite different from gpts and the current wave of “AI” as discussed in this article.
And guess what, it sucks just as much
Why are you like this
It’s not my fault that LLMs suck
The bot isn’t LLM based, Which was made clear to you
That’s what a bot would say!!!
*And so the humans fought the war that is now known as “the great internet war”. It was during this time that the robots took over the planet earth. *
Why are you like this?
Incoming data stream! This one is from a scientist! Ok Chat-GPT, get ready to learn how to be a scientist!
Incoming data stream! From a mom…oh shit Chat-GPT… run! It’s a single mom! Oh hold on! She found someone to love again! Nope, he was just using her for her beauty again. Well maybe just learn to do all chores, feed the kids, go to work, get sexually abused, fall a sleep, do all chores and make-up! And figure out if only fans really does work! And more chores.
