What if LLMs are optimizing the average office worker's productivity but the work itself simply has no discernable economic value? This is argued at length in Grebber's Bullshit Jobs essay and book.
Assistant is dispatching a courier to get medical records. AI auto completes to include the address. Normally they wouldn't put the address, the courier knows who we work with, but AI added it so why not. Except it's the wrong address because it's for a different doctor with the same name. At least they knew to verify it, but still mistakes like this happening at scale is making the other time savings pretty close to a wash.
See also: AI-Generated “Workslop” Is Destroying Productivity [1]
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/09/ai-generated-workslop-is-destroying-...
What AI has done is accelerate and magnify both the positives and the negatives.
There are a lot of white-collar tasks that have far lower quality and correctness bars. "Researching" by plugging things into google. Writing reports summarizing how a trend that an exec saw a report on can be applied to the company. Generating new values to share at a company all-hands.
Tons of these that never touch the "real world." Your assistant story is like a coding task - maybe someone ran some tests, maybe they didn't, but it was verifiable. No shortage of "the tests passed, but they weren't the right test, this broke some customers and had to be fixed by hand" coding stories out there like it. There are pages and pages of unverifiable bullshit that people are sleepwalking through, too, though.
Nobody already knows if those things helped or hurt, so nobody will ever even notice a hallucination.
But everyone in all those fields is going to be trying really really hard to enumerate all the reasons it's special and AI won't work well for them. The "management says do more, workers figure out ways to be lazier" see-saw is ancient, but this could skew far towards "management demands more from fewer people" spectrum for a while.
In all areas where there's less easy ways to judge output there is going to be correspondingly more value to getting "good" people. Some AI that can produce readable reports isn't "good" - what matters is the quality of the work and the insight put into it which can only be ensured by looking at the workers reputation and past history.
That's not obvious at all if the AI writing the tests is different than the AI writing the code being tested. Put into an adversarial and critical mode, the same model outputs very different results.
Someone needs to build an agentic tool that does strict, enforced TDD.
Obviously this is only partially true but it's true enough.
It takes humans quite a long time to learn the external context that lets them write good tests IMO. We have trouble feeding enough context into AIs to give them equal ability. One is often talking about companies where nobody bothers to write down more than 1/20th of what is needed to be an effective developer. So you go to some place and 5 years later you might be lucky to know 80% of the context in your limited area after 100s of meetings and talking to people and handling customer complaints etc.
I have been doing this with coding agents across LLM providers for a while now, with very successful results. Grok seems particularly happy to tell Anthropic where it’s cutting corners, but I get great insights from O3 and Gemini too.
Except the test suite isnt just something that appears and the bugs dont necessarily get covered by the test suite.
The bugginess of a lot of the software i use has spiked in a very noticeable way, probably due to this.
>But everyone in all those fields is going to be trying really really hard to enumerate all the reasons it's special and AI won't work well for them.
No, not everyone. Half of them are trying to lean in to the changing social reality.
The gaslighting from the executive side, on the other hand, is nearly constant.
Consider, for example, the following python code:
x = (5)
x = (5,)
Now imagine trying to spot that one missing comma among the 20kloc of code one so proudly claims AI helped them "write", especially if it's in a cold path. You won't see it.
Disagree.
Even though performing checks on dynamic PLs is much harder than on static ones, PLs are designed to be non-ambiguous. There should be exactly 1 interpretation for any syntactically valid expression. Your example will unambiguously resolve to an error in a standard-conforming Python interpreter.
On the other hand, natural languages are not restricted by ambiguity. That's why something like Poe's law exists. There's simply no way to resolve the ambiguity by just staring at the words themselves, you need additional information to know the author's intent.
In other words, an "English interpreter" cannot exist. Remove the ambiguities, you get "interpreter" and you'll end up with non-ambiguous, Python-COBOL-like languages.
With that said, I agree with your point that blindly accepting 20kloc is certainly not a good idea.
Those are both syntactically valid lines of code. (it's actually one of python's many warts). They are not ambiguous in any way. one is a number, the other is a tuple. They return something of a completely different type.
My example will unambiguously NOT give an error because they are standard conforming. Which you would have noticed had you actually took 5 seconds to try typing them in the repl.
> Those are both syntactically valid lines of code. (it's actually one of python's many warts). They are not ambiguous in any way. one is a number, the other is a tuple. They return something of a completely different type.
> "Now imagine trying to spot that one missing comma among the 20kloc of code"
My reply, "Your example will unambiguously resolve to an error in a standard-conforming Python interpreter." tried to respond to the possibility of such an issue. Even though it's probably not the program behavior you want, Python, being a programming language, will be 100% guaranteed to interpret it unambiguously.
I admit, I should have phrased it a bit more unambiguously than leaving it like that.
Even if it's hard, you can try running a type checker to statically catch such problems. Even if it's not possible in cases of heavy usage of Python's dynamic typing feature, you can just run it and check the behavior at runtime. It might be hard to check, but not impossible.
On the other hand, it's impossible to perform a perfectly consistent "check" on this reply or an email written in a natural language, the person reading it might interpret the message in a completely different way.
The few times I've tried giving LLMs a shot I've had them warning me of not putting some validations in, when that exact validation was exactly 1 line below where they stopped looking.
And even if it did pass an AI code review, that's meaningless anyway. It still needs to be reviewed by an actual human before putting it into production. And that person would still get scrolling blindness whether or not the ai "reviewer" actually detected the error or not.
I didn't say they were guaranteed to find it: I said they were really good at finding these sorts of errors. Not perfect: just really good. I also didn't make any assumption: I said in my experience, by which I mean the code you shared is similar to a portion of the errors that I've seen LLMs find.
Which LLMs have you used for code generation?
I mostly use claude-opus-4-6 at the moment for development, and have had mostly good experiences. This is not to say it never gets anything wrong, but I'm definitely more productive with it than without it. On GitHub I've been using Copilot for more limited tasks as an agent: I find it's decent at code review, but more variable at fixing problems it finds, and so I quite often opt for manual fixes.
And then the other question is, how do you use them? I tend to keep them on quite a short leash, so I don't give them huge tasks, and on those occasions where I am doing something larger or more complex, I tend to write out quite a detailed and prescriptive prompt (which might take 15 minutes to do, but then it'll go and spend 10 minutes to generate code that might have taken me several hours to write "the old way").
That book was very different than what I expected from all of the internet comment takes about it. The premise was really thin and did't actually support the idea that the jobs don't generate value. It was comparing to a hypothetical world where everything is perfectly organized, everyone is perfectly behaved, everything is perfectly ordered, and therefore we don't have to have certain jobs that only exist to counter other imperfect things in society.
He couldn't even keep that straight, though. There's a part where he argues that open source work is valuable but corporate programmers are doing bullshit work that isn't socially productive because they're connecting disparate things together with glue code? It didn't make sense and you could see that he didn't really understand software, other than how he imagined it fitting into his idealized world where everything anarchist and open source is good and everything corporate and capitalist is bad. Once you see how little he understands about a topic you're familiar with, it's hard to unsee it in his discussions of everything else.
That said, he still wasn't arguing that the work didn't generate economic value. Jobs that don't provide value for a company are cut, eventually. They exist because the company gets more benefit out of the job existing than it costs to employ those people. The "bullshit jobs" idea was more about feelings and notions of societal impact than economic value.
> Jobs that don't provide value for a company are cut, eventually.
Uhm, seems like Greaber is not the only one drawing conclusions from a hypothetical perfect world
I tried to respond to the specific conversation about Bullshit Jobs above. In my experience, the way this book is brought up so frequently in online conversations is used as a prop for whatever the commenter wants it to mean, not what the book actually says.
I think Graeber did a fantastic job of picking "bullshit jobs" as a topic because it sounds like something that everyone implicitly understands, but how it's used in conversation and how Graeber actually wrote about the topic are basically two different things
I thought he made a case for both societal and economic impact.
Not necessarily, I’ve seen a lot of jobs that were just flying under the radar. Sort of like a cockroach that skitters when light is on but roams freely in the dark.
I don't know if maybe he wasn't explaining it well enough, but that kind of reasoning makes some sense.
A lot of code is written because you want the output from Foo to be the input to Bar and then you need some glue to put them together. This is pretty common when Foo and Bar are made by different people. With open source, someone writes the glue code, publishes it, and then nobody else has to write it because they just use what's published.
In corporate bureaucracies, Company A writes the glue code but then doesn't publish it, so Company B which has the same problem has to write it again, but they don't publish it either. A hundred companies are then doing the work that only really needed to be done once, which makes for 100 times as much work, a 1% efficiency rate and 99 bullshit jobs.
Sure, but there's no such thing as "the company." That's shorthand - a convenient metaphor for a particular bunch of people doing some things. So those jobs can exist if some people - even one person - gets more benefit out of the job existing than it costs that person to employ them. For example, a senior manager padding his department with non-jobs to increase headcount, because it gives him increased prestige and power, and the cost to him of employing that person is zero. Will those jobs get cut "eventually"? Maybe, but I've seen them go on for decades.
But he states that expressis verbis, so your discovery is not that spectacular.
Although he gives examples of jobs, or some aspects of jobs, that don't help to deliver what specific institutions aim to deliver. Example would be bureaucratization of academia.
Edit: If anyone haven't watched Yes Minster, you should go and watch it, it is a documentary on UK Government that is still true today as it was 40-50 years ago.
I think broadly that's a paradoxical statement; improving office productivity should translate to higher gdp; whatever it is you're doing in some office - even if you're selling paper or making bombs, if you're more productive it means you're selling more (or using less resources to sell the same amount); that should translate to higher gdp (at least higher gdp per worker, there's the issue of what happens to gdp when many workers get fired).
Society as a whole is no better off since no value or wealth was generated, but the number did go up.
A whole bunch of our economy is broken windows like this to varying degrees.
i'm going to need you to go ahead and come in on sunday
i.e. it's not the LLM, it's that they're not being used properly.
I get accused of the no true Scotsman argument because I think agile can be done right, for example. Is work bullshit because an LLM doesn't help it?
Was a LLM used during that optimization? Yes.
Who will correlate the sudden productivity improvement with our optimization of the data flow with the availability of a LLM to do such optimizations fast enough that no project+consultants+management is needed ?
No one.
Just like no one is evaluating the value of a hammer or a ladder when you build a house.
This is where the whole "show me what you built with AI" meme comes from, and currently there's no substitute for SWEs. Maybe next year or next next year, but mostly the usage is generating boring stuff like internal tool frontends, tests, etc. That's not nothing, but because actually writing the code was at best 20% of the time cost anyway, the gains aren't huge, and won't be until AI gets into the other parts of the SDLC (or the SDLC changes).
It’s easy to convince yourself that it is, and anyone can massage some internal metric enough to prove their desired outcome.
And it is of this lowly commenter's opinion that proofreading for accuracy and clarity is harder than writing it yourself and defending it later.
This is not true at all. You can find plenty of examples going either way but it’s far from truth from being a universal reality
Maybe you're lucky enough to be doing cutting edge research or do something that really seriously impacts human beings, but I've done plenty of "mission critical right fucking now" work that a week from now (or even hours from now, when I worked for a content marketing business) is beyond irrelevant. It's an amazing thing watching marketing types set money on fire burning super expensive developer time (but salaried, so they discount the cost to zero) just to make their campaigns like 2-3% more efficient.
I've intentionally sat on plenty of projects that somebody was pushing really hard for because they thought it was the absolute right necessary thing at the time and the stakeholder realized was pointless/worthless after a good long shit and shower. This one move has saved literally man years of work to be done and IMO is the #1 most important skill people need to learn ("when to just do nothing").
Companies are obviously not hesitant to lay off anyone, especially for cost saving. It is interesting how you think that people are laid off because they’re unproductive.
Most "Bullshit Jobs" can already be automated, but can isnt always should or will. Graeber is a capex thinker in an opex world.
Not recognizing the essential role of sales seemed to be a common mistake.
It identified advertising as part of the category that it classed as heavily-bullshit-jobs for reason of being zero-sum—your competitor spends more, so you spent more to avoid falling behind, standard red queen’s race. (Another in this category was the military, which is kinda the classic case of this—see also, the Missile Gap, the dreadnought arms race, et c.) But not sales, IIRC.
Like when a competing country builds their tenth battleship, so you commission another one to match them. The world would have been better if neither had been build. Money changed hands (one supposes) but the aim of the whole exercise had no effect. It was similar to paying people to dig holes a fill them back in again, to the tune of serious money. This was so utterly stupid and wasteful that there was a whole treaty about it, to try to prevent so many bullshit jobs from being created again.
Or when Pepsi increases their ad spending in Brazil, so Coca Cola counters, and much of the money ends up accomplishing little except keeping things just how they were. That component or quality of the ad industry, the book claims, is bullshit, on account of not doing any good.
The book treats of several ways in which a job might be bullshit, and just kinda mentions this one as an aside: the zero-sum activity. It mostly covers other sorts, but this is the closest I can recall it coming to declaring sales “bullshit” (the book rarely, bordering on never, paints even most of an entire industry or field as bullshit, and advertising isn’t sales, but it’s as close as it got, as I recall)
Is it a waste of effort when two companies try to make the best electric car?
If it is wasteful what does aw orld look like where nobody ever spends resources on a goal which overlaps with someone else?
- Which products get included in the candidate list? Every product in existence which claims use? - how many results can it return? And in what order? - which attributes or description of the product is provided to the llm? Who provides it? - how are the claims in those descriptions verified? - what if my business believes the claims or description of our product is false? - how will the llm change its relative valuations based on demand?
> The only way advertising won't exist or won't be needed is when humanity becomes a hive mind and removes all competition.
I don't need advertisement to pick the best product for myself. I have a list of requirements that I need fulfilled – why do I need advertisement for it?
No. They can ban particular modes. They can’t stop people from using power and money to spread ideas.
In the US hedge funds are banned from advertising and all they did is change their forms of presentation to things like presenting at conferences or on podcasts.
If there was a socialist fantasy of a government review board for which all products were submitted before being listed in a government catalog. Then advertising would be lobbying and jockeying that review board to view your product in a particular way. Or merely to go through the process and ensure correct information was kept.
It says stuff like why can’t a customer just order from an online form? The employee who helps them doesn’t do anything except make them feel better. Must be a bullshit job. It talks specifically about my employees filling internal roles like this.
> advertising
I understand the arms race argument, but it’s really hard to see what an alternative looks like. People can spend money to make you more aware of something. You can limit some modes, but that kind of just exists.
I don’t see how they aren’t performing an important function.
There's nothing inherent to socialism that would preclude advertising. It's an economic system where the means of production (capital) is owned by the workers or the state. In market socialism you still have worker cooperatives competing on the market.
If you've read much else you should be able to engage with text properly, and construct charitable interpretations of author's claims or arguments.
Did I miss something?
The example used here was advertising. And then when we push on the example the fallback is to the subjective - feeling unfilled, definition.
So I am still look for concrete examples of bullshit jobs to justify the original comment that AI will find efficiencies by letting us throw these away.
Got any? You are an expert on the text so I’m hoping you can identify one.
See what I mean? We push on where these fake jobs are and you fallback to a subjective internal definition we can’t inspect.
And now let me remind you of the context. If the real definition of bullshit isn’t economic slack, but internal dissatisfaction then this comment would be false:
> What if LLMs are optimizing the average office worker's productivity but the work itself simply has no discernable economic value? This is argued at length in Grebber's Bullshit Jobs essay and book.
Ever actually lived in anything approaching one? Yeah, if the stores are empty, it does not make sense to produce ads for stuff that isn't there ...
... but we still had ads on TV, surprisingly, even for stuff that was in shortage (= almost everything). Why? Because the Plan said so, and disrespecting the Plan too openly would stray dangerously close to the crime of sabotage.
You have no idea.
And people won't give up their shops and fields and other means of production to the government voluntarily, at least not en masse. Thus they have to be forced at a gunpoint, and they always were.
All the subsequent horror is downstream from that. This is what is inherent to building a socialist economy: mass expropriation of the former "exploitative class". The bad management of the stolen assets is just a consequence, because ideologically brainwashed partisans are usually bad at managing anything including themselves.
Yugoslavia was extremely successful, with economic growth that matched or exceeded most capitalist European economies post-WW2. In some ways it wasn't as free as western societies are today but it definitely wasn't totalitarian, and in many ways it was more free - there's a philosophical question in there about what freedom really is. For example Yugoslavia made abortion a constitutionally protected right in the 70s.
I don't want to debate the nuances of what's better now and what was better then as that's beside the point, which is that the idiosyncrasies of the terrible Soviet economy are not inherent to "socialism", just like the idiosyncrasies of the US economy aren't inherent to capitalism.
It is the model, introduced basically everywhere where socialism was taken seriously. It is like saying that cars with four wheels are just one terrible model, because there were a few cars with three wheels.
Yugoslavia was a mixed economy with a lot of economic power remaining in private hands. You cannot point at it and say "hey, successful socialism". Tito was a mortal enemy of Stalin, stroke a balanced neither-East-nor-West, but fairly friendly to the West policy already in 1950, and his collectivization efforts were a fraction of what Marxist-Leninist doctrine demands.
You also shouldn't discount the effect of sending young Yugoslavs to work in West Germany on the total balance sheet. A massive influx of remittances in Deutsche Mark was an important factor in Yugoslavia getting richer, and there was nothing socialist about it, it was an overflow of quick economic growth in a capitalist country.
> You cannot point at it and say "hey, successful socialism"
Yes I can because ideological purity doesn't exist in the real world. All of our countries are a mix of capitalist and socialist ideas yet we call them "capitalist" because that's the current predominant organization.
> Tito was a mortal enemy of Stalin, stroke a balanced neither-East-nor-West, but fairly friendly to the West policy already in 1950, and his collectivization efforts were a fraction of what Marxist-Leninist doctrine demands.
You're making my point for me, Yugoslavia was completely different from USSR yet still socialist. Socialism is not synonymous with Marxist-Leninist doctrine. It's a fairly simple core idea that has an infinite number of possible implementations, one of them being market socialism with worker cooperatives.
Aside from that short period post-WW2, no socialist or communist nation has been allowed to exist without interference from the US through oppressive economic sanctions that would cripple and destroy any economy regardless of its economic system, but people love nothing more than to draw conclusions from these obviously-invalid "experiments".
"You" (and I mean the collective you) are essentially hijacking the word "socialism" to simply mean "everything that was bad about the USSR". The system has been teaching and conditioning people to do that for decades, but we should really be more conscious and stop doing that.
That is what COMECON was supposed to solve, but if you aggregate a heap of losers, you won't create a winning team.
"Socialism is not synonymous with Marxist-Leninist doctrine. It's a fairly simple core idea that has an infinite number of possible implementations, one of them being market socialism with worker cooperatives."
Of that infinite number, the violent Soviet-like version became the most widespread because it was the only one that was somewhat stable when implemented on a countrywide scale. That stability was bought by blood, of course.
No one is sabotaging worker cooperatives in Europe and lefty parties used to given them extra support, but they just don't seem to be able to grow well. The largest one is located in Basque Country and it is debatable if its size is partly caused by Basque nationalism, which is not a very socialist idea. Aside from that one, worker cooperatives of more than 1000 people are rare birds.
"The system has been teaching and conditioning people to do that for decades, but we should really be more conscious and stop doing that."
No one in the former socialist bloc will experiment with that quagmire again. For some reason, socialism is a catnip of intellectuals who continue to defend it, but real-world workers dislike it and defect from various attempts to build it at every opportunity.
We should stop trying to ride dead horses. Collective ownership of means of production on a macro scale is every bit as dead as divine right of kings to rule. There are still Curtis Yarvin types of intellectual who subscribe to the latter idea, but it is pining for the fjords. So is socialism.
What kind of disingenuous argument is that? Existence of COMECON doesn't neutralize the enormous disadvantage and economic pressure of having sanctioned imposed on you.
> Of that infinite number
I'm glad we agree that Soviet communism is not synonymous with "socialism".
> Aside from that one, worker cooperatives of more than 1000 people are rare birds.
You're applying pointless capitalist metrics to non-capitalist organizations and moralizing about how they don't live up to them.
> No one in the former socialist bloc will experiment with that quagmire again.
You're experimenting with socialist policies and values right now, you just don't want to call it by that name because of your weird fixation. Do public healthcare, transport, education, social security benefits ring any bells?
If you talked to people from ex-Yugoslavia, you'd know that many would be happy to return to that time.
> We should stop trying to ride dead horses.
We should stop declaring horses extinct when it's just your own horse that has died.
The Soviets and their satellites (like the DDR), had another problem related to arbitrage, and that is that their professionals (such as doctors and engineers and scientists, all of whom received high quality, free, state-subsidized education), were being poached by the Western Bloc countries (a Soviet or East German engineer would work for half the local salary in France or West Germany, _and_ they would be a second class citizen, easy to frighten with deportation -- the half-salary was _much_ greater than what they could earn in the Eastern Bloc). The iron curtain was erected to prevent this kind of arbitrage (why should the Soviets and satellites subsidize Western medicine and engineering? Shouldn't a capitalist market system be able to sustain itself? Well no, market systems are inefficient by design, and so they only work as _open_ systems and not _closed_ systems -- they need to _externalize_ the costs and _internalize_ the gains, which is why colonialism was a thing to begin with, and why the "third world" is _still_ a thing).
Note that after the Berlin Wall fell, the first thing to happen was mass migrations of all kinds of professionals (such as architects and doctors) and semi-professionals (such as welders and metal-workers), creating an economic decline in the East, and an economic and demographic boom in the West (the reunification of Germany was basically a _demographic_ subsidy -- in spite of the smaller size, East Germany had much higher birth rates for _decades_; and after the East German labor pool was integrated, Western economies sought to integrate the remaining Eastern labor pools (more former Yugoslavs live abroad in Germany than in any other non-Yugo part of the world [the USA numbers are iffy, but if true Croatians are the only exception, with ~2M residents in USA, which seems unlikely]).
The problem, in the end, is that all of these countries are bound by economic considerations (this is thesis of Marx, by the way), and they cannot escape the vicious arbitrage cycle (I mean, here in the USA, we have aggressively been brain-draining _ourselves_ since at least 1980, which is why we have the extreme polarization, stagnation, and instability _today_ -- it is reminiscent of the Soviet situation in the mid 1980s to late 1990s). Not without something like a world government (if there is only one account to manage, there is no possibility of deficit or surplus, unless measured inter-temporally), or an alternative flavor of globalization.
Internationalism is a wonderful ideology, and one that I support. You can make the case that Yugoslavia, the USSR, etc, were an early experiment in Internationalism, that each succumbed to corruption and unclear thinking (a citizenry that is _inclusive_ by nature and can _think_ clearly is a hard requirement for any successful polity). Globalization, on the other hand, has a bit of an Achilles Heel: when countries asked why they should open their borders and economies to outsider/foreigners, they were told, "so that we can all get rich!". The problem is that once the economic gains get squeezed out of globalization, countries will start looking for new ways to rich, even if it means reversing decades of integration. Appealing to people's greed only works to the extent that you can placate their appetites. We should have justified Internationalism using _intrinsic_ arguments: "we should integrate because learning how others see and experience the world is intrinsically beautiful, and worth struggling for".
Note that most of these economic pathologies disappear, when the reserve currency (dollar) is replaced with a self-balancing currency (like Keynes' Bancor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor). We have the tools, but everyone wants to feel like the only/greatest winner. These are the first people that have to be exiled.
> There’s not much of value to obtain from the book.
Anthropological insight has much more value than anything economists may produce on economy.
Modern economics is literally a bullshit job generating process or complex system.