They’d be excited at getting 100x of 100% output out an AI for 20 dollars a month and laying you off as redundant. If you aren’t scared of the potential of this technology you are lying to yourself.
They produce twice as much and grow.
What forum is this???
You're relying on theoretical work needed by employers to be unlimited. You're also assuming all of this additional work can't be handled by an LLM.
First of all fixed lump of work is not a fallacy. We do know there is a limit as there's limits in the amount of work human brains can even comprehend. A limit exists. We don't know where exactly this limit is, but a limit DOES exist and an LLM may possibly cover that limit.
Second, you have to assume that this "additional work" can't be handled by the LLM. How can you be sure? Did you think about what this work actually is? My first thought was "cleaning the toilets."
>What forum is this???
I assume it's a forum of people who don't base their lives off of concepts with buzzwords. “Fixed lump of work fallacy” is a fancy phrase for a fancy concept... that doesn't mean it's an actual fallacy or actually true. Literally you just threw that quote up there as if the slightly clever wording itself proves your point.
What Exactly is this additional work that will pop up once LLMs are around and so powerful they can do all human intellectual work? Can you even do a concrete/solid real-world analysis without jumping to vague hypotheticals covered by fancy worded conceptual quotations? The last guy used analogies as part of his logical baseline of reasoning. Wasn't convincing to me.
Why should I be scared of technology that makes me more productive?
If they’re happy with current rate of progress (and in many companies that is the case), then a productivity increase of 100% means they need half the current number of engineers.
And the “current rate” is competitively defined. So if AI can make software developers twice as productive, then the acceptable minimum “current rate” will become 2x faster than it is today.
Ai is trending towards a point where it makes your employers productive such that they don’t need you.
Yet people are still employed today. They are doing the many new jobs that the productivity boost of digital computing created.
Productivity creates jobs.
The computer created jobs because it takes human skills to talk to the computer.
It takes very little skill to talk to an LLM. Why would your manager ask you to prompt an LLM to do something for you when he can do it himself? You going to answer this question with another analogy?
Just think reasonably and logically. Why would I pay you a 300k annual salary when a chatGPT can do it for nothing? It's pretty straightforward. If you can't justify something with a straightforward answer, likely you're not being honest with yourself.
Why don't we use actually evidence based logic to prove things rather then justify things by leaping over some unreasonable gap with some analogy. Think about the current situation, don't base your hope on a past situation and hope that the current situation will be the same because of analogy.
Now you might say AI means that I will run out of things that my employer needs me to do. And I'll repeat what I said above: you've got to prove that. I'm not going to take it on faith that you have sussed out the complete future of business.
What we can do is make a logical and theoretical extrapolation. If AI progresses to the point where it can do every single task you can do in seconds, what task is there for you left to do? And how hard is the task? If LLMs never evolve to the point where they can clean toilets, well then you can do that, but why would the boss pay you 300k to clean the toilet?
These are all logical conjectures on a possible future. The problem here is that if AI continues on the same trendline it's traveling on now I can't come up with a logical chain of thought where YOU or I keep our 300k+ engineering jobs.
This is what I keep hearing from not just you, but a ton of people. That analogy about how technology only created more jobs before with no illustration of a specific scenario of what's going on here. Yeah if LLMs replace almost every aspect of human intellectual analysis, design, art and engineering what is there left to do?
Clean the toilet. I'm not even kidding. We still have things we can do but the end comes when robotics catches up and is able to make robots as versatile as the human form. That's the true end when the boss has chatGPT clean the toilet.