• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Short term yes; long term probably not. All the dipshit c-suites pushing the “AI” worker replacement initiatives are going to destroy their workforces and then realize that LLMs can’t actually reliably replace any of the workers they fired. And I love that for management.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’re gonna realize the two jobs it can actually replace is HR and the C suite.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, HR gets by because of legal compliance, and execs get by through convincing the board to give them X years, and then jump to the next one.

      • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Lol AI cannot replace either of those jobs. “I’m sorry I can’t help with your time off request but here is a gluten free recipe for a pie that feeds 30 people.”

        • Venat0r@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It won’t replace any jobs entirely, it will just reduce the number of people needed for each job.

          Not that there’s much difference if you’re the one being made redundant.

    • 3volver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      You’re referring to something that is changing and getting better constantly. In the long term LLMs are going to be even better than they are now. It’s ridiculous to think that it won’t be able to replace any of the workers that were fired. LLMs are going to allow 1 person to do the job of multiple people. Will it replace all people? No. But even if it allows 1 person to do the job of 2 people, that’s 50% of the workforce unemployed. This isn’t even mentioning how good robotics have gotten over the past 10 years.

      • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        You must have one person constantly checking for hallucinations in everything that is generated: how is that going to be faster?

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      and then realize that LLMs can’t actually reliably replace any of the workers they fired.

      Depends on the job. Reliability is not really important to these companies. They can be imperfect and cost them money, but nowhere near as much as a human will cost them, and they’ll probably do the job better than the majority of them.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Short term? Sure.

        Long term? Not a chance that equation works out favorably.

        But then again, c-suites these days only seem to give a shit about short-term implications.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It can potentially allow 1 worker to do the job of 10. For 9 of those workers, they have been replaced. I don’t think they will care that much for the nuance that they technically weren’t replaced by AI, but by 1 co-worker who is using AI to be more efficient.

      That doesn’t necessarily mean that we won’t have enough jobs any more, because when in human history have we ever become more efficient and said “ok, good enough, let’s just coast now”? We will just increase the ambition and scope of what we will build, which will require more workers working more efficiently.

      But that still really sucks because it’s not going to be the same exact jobs and it will require re-training. These disruptions are becoming more frequent in human history and it is exhausting.

      We still need to spread these gains so we can all do less and also help those whose lives have been disrupted. Unfortunately that doesn’t come for free. When workers got the 40 hour work week it was taken by force.

      • AProfessional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        My colleagues are starting to use AI, it just makes their code worse and harder to review. I honestly can’t imagine that changing, AI doesn’t actually understand anything.

        • Yggnar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          This comment has similar vibes to a boomer in the 80s saying that the Internet is useless and full of nothing but nerds arguing on forums, and he doesn’t see that changing.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s not what is going to happen. Copilot will simply increase productivity over, and where before they needed 10 people, gradually, through attrition they will need only 9, then 8, and so on. That does not mean higher unemployment though, it means more product.

      • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago
        • “AI means there will be fewer people required to do the same amount of work”

        • “this does not mean higher unemployment”

        I think you left out a steep off reasoning there. At least, I don’t follow.

      • slaacaa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Businesses want to grow, not keep stable. They might fire a few ppl in the short term, but in the long term it’s more likely the group of 10 would just do now the work of a 12-13 group with AI, producing hugher outputs for the same money they were getting before, meaning extra profit for the shareholders.