340
AI will reduce workforce, say 41% of execs in a survey
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
340 points (93.4% liked)
Technology
59670 readers
1833 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People here keep belittling AI. You're all wrong, at least when considering the long run... We can't beat it. We need to outlaw it.
Train it to replace CEO's.
It's Schrödinger's AI. It is both useless and will replace everyone. Depending on the agenda the particular person is trying to push.
Oh, there it goes again.
I know it's getting boring. I am tried of people telling me how chatgpt and friends are toys that just spit back website data and in the same comment telling me how they are basically angry gods ready to end the human race.
Fucking make up your mind!
"Smash the looms" is the wrong idea.
"Eat the rich" might have some merit though.
Yeah, don’t smash the looms, seize them. The ability to make labor easier and more efficient is a positive if we don’t allow it to be a means to impoverish the workers
Nah, I disagree on both counts.
Is the intent here to preserve jobs even if it's less productive? That's solving the wrong problem. Instead of banning it, we should be adapting to it. If AI is more efficient than people, the jobs people take should change.
I think there's a solid case that if something would devolve into rent-seeking because competition is unproductive, it should be provided as a public service. Do you need a job if all of your basic needs are met by AI? At that point, any work you do would be optional, so people would follow their passions instead of working to make ends meet (see: Star Trek universe).
Think of it like Basic Income, but instead of cash, you'd get services at-cost. I think there's room for non-profits (or maybe the government) to provide these AI-services at-cost.
Outlawing it is a very dangerous aim, because outlawing it completely will enable other countries to out-compete us, and a outlawing it completely is right next to "outlaw it for normal people, but allow companies to exploit it for profit" on the dart board of possibilities.
Better path all around is "allow everyone to use AI and establish strong social safety nets and move towards enabling people to work less".
Haven't I been hearing that since the rise of computing and the internet? And it's probably been around even longer. Seems like this sort of stuff only gets going when a lot of workers start putting up a fight.
But hey, maybe 41% jobs lost might be the tipping point. Because people aren't just gonna sit on the sidewalk and starve.
If AI is outlawed, only outlaws will have AI
Y'all are dumbass doomers. Have some fun with AI while your can you some aged peasants. We were always fucked.