- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
You must log in or register to comment.
We’ve had the technology to create a post-scarcity world for decades, but we persist in the idea that some people have to suffer for society to function
I’ve been ringing this bell to everyone I know ever since I started using Cursor. Nobody’s gonna hire entry-level devs for the next 5 years, and I don’t know what happens when we need mid-level devs after that.
They will work their senior devs to death, continuously offering more money to forgo their retirement until the AI can replace them and eventually code becomes a lost language to us that only the machines can understand.
Even if there wasn’t AI taking people’s jobs, what left is there to develop?
It feels like there already was a natural contraction of the industry after the increase in interest rates. I feel like AI is more of a smoke screen for executives to justify loss of headcount.
I mean, the answer is simple. You teach people how to code better. That is literally the point of education - to teach people to do things so they don’t have to learn on the job via trial and error.
It wont tho. The tech bro bubble inflaters would love it, but realistically AI wont “take” any jobs because its not capable of doing them. Bosses might fire the workers anyways, but not much later they will find out that nothing will work anymore and rehire them.
Unfortunately i just don’t think this is true. We have already seen automated phone systems take over call centers and AI chatbots take over some tech support roles. There will be kinks in the system but overall there will be a net loss of jobs to AI
Seems like you are saying “because we invented the train, now there are no more jobs for carriage drivers.”
What I’m saying is AI has already proven to replace at least a couple of tasks if not entire existing jobs.
Right, but it doesn’t follow that there is a net loss of jobs.
If you are producing X with 20 people, and AI reduces the burden on each of them by 10%, what do you think is more likely:
-
they start producing 10% more product (despite constant demand), or
-
they reduce their costs by 10%?
Obviously not every position gets eliminated - some of those companies will produce more, instead. But to claim there’s no net loss of jobs is just plain silly.
The number of jobs to produce X decreases by 10%.
Increased available labor then shifts to producing Y.
So there’s no net job loss because the people who are laid off will eventually find new jobs? What on earth?
Given that mindset, then is all unemployment just fake? After all, they should just be finding a new job
-
How many horses are alive now compared to 100 years ago?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
That’s pretty much the goal. The minimum wage laws prevent companies from lowering wages past a certain point, AI eliminates that problem. And really, the mid and high-level jobs aren’t exactly safe, either, even if they seem so now.
Thats my thoughts. Its going to kill entry level anything, thereby moving more wealth upwards to the already-haves. So if you dont own anything now, youre never going to. Get used to it.
