Can someone, more informed than me, about the job landscape, name these jobs people keep claiming AI is creating? Thank you in advance.
Geoffrey Hinton seems to be in the headlines constantly going "godfather of AI" and giving some random obtuse warning or call for action.
Eric Schmidt also spends a lot of time yapping.
And of course people like Gary Marcus.
Simon Willison also does a lot of writing but at least his blog is actually useful information of actual tests and news.
I would not include simonw with the other 3 at all. His opinions are informed by use instead of just other thoughts. Simon also releases a lot of utility tools.
It's pretty wild.
It's easier to start the next widget company because building widgets with the technology is cheaper.
It's easier to consume other things because goods are cheaper to make with the tech.
A third option is that the tech enables something all together new, eg television, that starts a new industry.
As far as direct job creation, the third way is the most obvious but probably not the case at the moment. So I guess we're stuck waiting for goods and services made with AI to get cheaper.
I'm joking, but not. I think a lot of fat is going to get trimmed of the bone of most industries. That may include myself which is a worry.
With this much shoddy code out there, I'm expecting a LOT more testers are going to be needed. This is job creation but not the good kind.
Think Tesla Optimus robot grabbing popcorn. Instead of one cashier filling bags of popcorn, you now have a dedicated teleoperator + sweeper to pickup all the popcorn that's spilled. One job turned into two jobs.
Perhaps AI will finally raise the bar so high lower-IQ individuals won't be able to find any meaningful employment, but this has never happened in before and I doubt it'll happen again. I don't think I've seen a respected economist go on a news broadcast and say AI will lead to mass unemployment.
Is it ?
> when something makes the economy more efficient
How does "ai" make "the economy" more efficient exactly ?
> people get new, better jobs
Which law dictate that these jobs are better ?
I don't see people getting better jobs personally, I see a shit load of people pushed into more and more precarious jobs, with less and less workers rights and job security, with stagnating wages despite rise in productivity, &c.
Yes, if you look up any video of an economist talking about AI, they'll bring up the industrial revolution and point out how people thought it would bring the end of employment and instead created more and better jobs. The generally accepted viewpoint is AI will make things more efficient, and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work.
99% of economists couldn't see any of the big downturns up to 1hr before shit hit the fan. Yet they all retrospectively can upload 12 hours long video on youtube to explain you how the dot com or 2008 crisis were so obvious you'd have to be blind to not have seen them coming...
> and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work.
"freed" is a weird word to employ, given the century+ long race to automation shouldn't we all have been freed by now ? Why do so many people work min wage or other type of precarious jobs ? Why will I retire later than my parents and grand parents ?
And what do you mean by "more important" ? Most jobs are bullshit and workers know it, they don't want important jobs, they want stables jobs that pay enough to live life, and "ai" is going to do anything but improve that
In a post-labor-scarcity world, there is no longer any "other, more important work."
Which means there's no basis for paying labor currency, which means there's no way for labor to buy things, which means we need a new method to ensure people can get things.
Baby steps, I guess.
"Meaningful" is a bit weasely here. If a skilled factory worker had their job offshored in the past and wound up employed at Walmart after, they did not find "meaningful" work
It has happened plenty of times
Still doesn’t explain how new jobs are created. Efficient economy doesn’t mean more jobs. You could displace a thousand workers and create a single new better job, but that means nothing.
For a simple model, let's say you hire programmers for three reasons:
1. Because you have (X) work to get done to run your business. Once that work is done, there is no more work to do.
2. Because they get work done that makes more money than you pay them, but with diminishing marginal returns. So the first programmer is worth 20x their salary, the 20th is worth 1.01x their salary.
3. Because you have some new idea to build, and have enough capital to gamble on it. If it succeeds before you run out of money, you'll revert to (1) or (2).
Let's assume AI comes along that means a programmer can do 4x the work. If most programmers are in the first bucket, then you only need 1/4 as many programmers and most will be fired.
If most programmers are in the second bucket, then suddenly there's _much_ more stuff that can be built (and money made) per-programmer. So businesses will be incentivized to hire many more programmers.
For programmers in the third bucket, our AI makes more likely to get built in time, thus ups the odds of success a little.
How you think the market is structured decides how you think AI will effect job creation and destruction.
> If most programmers are in the second bucket, then suddenly there's _much_ more stuff that can be built (and money made) per-programmer. So businesses will be incentivized to hire many more programmers.
How do these two reconcile? If hiring more programmers is diminishing returns, why would a business hire more?
That said, I'm sort of assuming simple tasks will get done with AI, which isn't a given and is something I could easily be wrong about. AI could easily just benefit everyone, as has been the case for every prior technological advancement in human history
One team to re-do the work to double check the right answer. The second team to reconcile the right answer with the AI result.
I'm not even joking ... I've professionally been extremely embarrassed once by an AI result. Now I check it so often that I might as well just do the work I asked it to do.
No doubt, quick questions and rough ideas, LLM is the bomb.
Professionally? Nah. Not yet.