discodonkey

The current wave of tech layoffs is much like those that preceded it (e.g. after the pandemic), except this time AI is used as a scapegoat.

This article, like Citrini research's scenario before it, misses much of the economics.

AI is unlikely to be as revolutionary as is presumed. It's definitely going to lead to increased productivity, and will probably render some jobs redundant, but it's unlikely to have a significant effect on wages/employment [1], and as of now there isn't one [2]. When it does effect workers (which is still uncommon), AI mostly leads to task reallocation.

Right now, AI's massive valuations seem more like a reflection of the typical speculation that accompanies major technological innovations (thinking IoT, railroads, automobiles) than of its real economic value [3].

The "dead economy" scenario would only be possible in the event of extraordinary, and extraordinarily-unlikely levels of AI-driven unemployment.

[1] https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/The%20...

[2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w33509

[3] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2003-0...

Ancedotally, as an Israeli, people's (or at least protesters') discontent with the Netanyahu government is essentially limited to his criminal charges, general populist antics, and his refusal to cut a hostage deal.

You would be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks the IDF is commiting war crimes in Gaza, let alone a genocide.

There is great skepticism towards international NGOs that make these accusations, especially the U.N., owing to past pro-Palestinian bias.

I don't understand how you can portray these small-business owners as some helpless lambs, powerless against tourists. I can think of many ways to stop tourists from patronising an establishment. But of course (that one cocktail bar owner notwithstanding), most businesses operate for profit, and lap that money up.

Really, it seems to me like this essay is more about turning up your nose that some people are not enjoying Japan the "right" way.

This is perfectly reasonable.

People are living and staying healthy for longer than they used to, while the overall population is aging disproportionally due to low birth rates. If they hadn't raised the retirement age, they would have to raise taxes very significantly.

People should remember that retirement is about making sure the people who are too old to work can still live respectably. It's not an end-of-life vacation.

Of course, it's still going to be massively unpopular. But the alternative is fiscal armageddon.

When AI writes nonsensical code, it's a problem, but not a huge one. But when ChatGPT hallucinates while giving you legal/medical advice, there are tangible, severe consequences.

Unless there's going to be a huge reduction in hallucinations, I absolutely don't see LLMs replacing doctors or lawyers.

I think the authors of this article probably sought to highlight the fact that AI is now being used in medical research, rather than credit it with all the work (see "helps unravel" as opposed to "unravels").

My point was that no data gleaned from this experiment would've been meaningful, regardless of the result, because it was not conducted very rigourously.and on a sufficiently large scale.

For a community that prides itself on critical thinking, I'm always surprised to see HN lap this sort of pseudoscientific witch-doctor stuff up.

This poorly-controlled, N=1 experiment tells you nothing, not even about the author.

There's absolutely no reason to consider these novice self-experiments when professional scientific experiments are available (unless you're hunting for a specific result).

It seems to be using the CPI. The basket of goods & services the CPI is referencing is determined by the extensive Consumer Expenditure Survey, and reflects to a fair degree the actual spending habits of Americans.

Obviously, if you give more weight to housing, you're going to get different results. But it would distort the actual change in expenditure.

True. Income inequality increased.

The person I responded to suggested that only the rich saw income growth, and that they were achieving this by taking from the poor, which is wrong.

>economic growth hasn’t been occurring in real terms for most people for a long time

This is just not true.

At least in the U.S., people of all income tiers have seen their incomes grow[0] while their working hours shrunk[1].

Inequality is a problem in itself, but equating unequal gains with "transferring money from the poor" seems like bad faith.

[0] - https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/th...

[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-working-hours-per-...

According to Wiktionary, the standard of living is "the level of income, comforts and services available to an individual, community or society."

Levels of income have risen. Comforts and services available are not as simple to measure as income, but consumption (a decent proxy) is also trending upwards.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.TOTL.CD?location...

Living standards have absolutely been rising for just about everyone, and continue to do so - for example in terms of income growth[0]. People in all income tiers have seen their incomes grow consistently, albeit not equally.

[0] - https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/th...

What chiefly worries me about my country is its unstable political situation, which is something most Western countries grapple with. Specifically, the precarious position of liberal democracy.

Given all that -- probably Norway, or Ireland.

I don't think there are many people who are "pro-government waste". That would be a strange position to hold.

I do think that Elon Musk and DOGE are attempting to create a "with us or against us" binary narrative that leaves no room for even-handed nuance (not unlike Trump), in an effort to push an agenda that maybe doesn't have much to do with government efficiency (for example, MTG's clampdown on allegedly-liberal media [0]).

[0] - https://www.axios.com/2025/02/03/marjorie-taylor-greene-hear...

A much more obvious reason for the decline in smoking is the popularization of vapes. If you look at U.S. adults, you'll see that the decline in tobacco smoking is almost entirely made up for by the increase in vaping.

Technically, of course, vapes aren't cigarettes. But It's a bit misleading to say that smoking is unpopular, when it's just been replaced by a doppelganger. Especially since vapes are also deeply detrimental to health [1].

[1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7348661/