It was obvious and proven already a few years ago:
CEOs are the first and most easy ones to replace by AI.
We're still quoting this fucker after his Epstein emails?
I'd prefer not, but he's not wrong.
Hes talking about keeping human execs and CEOs. Because fuck the plebs. And in his case fuck the young plebs.
The way CEOs blindly follow trends and lie compulsively, they'd be perfectly replaced by LLMs.
Its called "Unions", they're pretty cool if imperfect. No worse than unfettered employers in "capitalism"
Anyone who's against unions should be against and refuse to work for any employer with an HR + Legal departments cuz serious employers generally dont dare operate without those resources to manage their risk and compliance
Per the article, he's talking about doctors.
Let‘s construct a data center in each and every backyard of this fucker‘s properties and let‘s hear what he has to say about AI then.
epstein associate making noise to distract from epstein relationship-GATES.
“Would you like fries with that?”
-Human brings out the fries-
Very related to the premise of Job Simulator, where AI feels bad for bored humans so creates a museum where they can experience work.
After the attacks of 9/11 the US government went through its biggest reorganisation since World War II for the purpose of improving just one function, national security. AI will require much, much more. It will affect national security as well as employment, education, taxation, energy, elections, air and water, public health, the financial system, law enforcement, transportation, ...
They're telling us to change our systems, yet it's as a responce to a change they themselves brought about. Just think of how much public money could have been saved if they had just refrained from developing AI in the first place. People's jobs are getting automated and they are getting asked to pay for the privilige
Not developing AI. We've been working on and with ANI for a very long time, and constant research on what might make AGI possible. What side railed everything is some companies found out they can do lots of amazing things with LLMs, a subset of AI science, and investors will pay them to make better versions. They talk a lot about how what they're doing will lead to AGI, but these people (or the scientists doing the actual work) know better than that. LLMs can possibly be part of what AGI uses, but it's on the wrong branch. And they've given up following the other branches because this one is paying off.
So in short, we could have done better (both ethically and core results), but once again money got in the way.
You wouldn't want to waste good money on things like buildings and roads for those pesky humans on the reservations, would you? I mean, you could, but think of the losses.
Why give them pointless jobs? Just give them the money.
Agreed that's trying to preserve the workaround, without fixing the problem.
Problem is it doesn't matter, the reality is, demand for jobs, and people who need to survive... isn't a number guaranteed to match, and between automation, and wages falling so far behind inflation that many households need 2+ incomes just to keep the lights on, an unemployment problem is inevitable.
If AI actually can cut enough jobs, that the number of jobs available, is less than the number of people who WANT to work, then all we need to do is make it so people don't HAVE to work.
If AI actually can cut enough jobs
Anyone who has used one of these knows that it can't. It's all a scheme to defraud investors.
I mean, it has cut jobs already... and replaced human talent with cheap slop.
It can make "art". That art sucks, and is obvious where it's used. Everyone hates the AI ads.
It can make "music". Wouldn't be surprised if it's being used in places some people haven't noticed, but probably ads or something where we tune out.
It replaced a lot of jobs that used to have human customer service reps... Shitty jobs that are soul sucking, but also jobs that paid people's rent. And the customer service sucks more now, even worse than someone who's
But the lie the investors bought was that it'd replace human labor. And less so, it's the new "industrial age". Nah. It's like the industrial age in some respects, but for small sectors of labor where you don't give a shit that the product is worse.
I feel like people make this weird mistake inspired by scifi that, if a tech becomes possible, it automatically fulfills some sci-fi prophecies about changing humanity. I think we keep making this mistake, and end up realizing well maybe it's a bit more complicated, maybe there's a cost we didn't see, maybe there's fundamental limits to its potential we didn't see.
Just because you make a chatbot that can code doesn't mean it can improve its own code exponentially. It just hasn't, and not for the lack of their trying.
I mean, it has cut jobs already...
It didn't. Again, companies are cutting jobs to appease investors and make it look that way.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
