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.

I don’t think how “we” are currently choosing to use AI was inevitable but I do think AI was inevitable

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

Doesn’t the power of unions come from the employer’s need for human workers? If they don’t need human workers anymore, then what good would a union do?

• much of unions’ role is to consider threats to its members like automation and mtigate that.
• If an employer can afford a full strike of its human employees than there’s not much a union can do besides strike, sue, and lobby against it
• how many employers (are there any??) can actually practically survive a full protracted strike and replace everyone fast enough that it doesnt put them severely in the hole if not outright killing their business.
• customers will find a new source for what they relied on that company for and likely wont return
• company will attract attention from politicians and lawyers wanting to get in on the action and train their targets on the company. This will likely produce law unfavorable to the company that becomes a new worse precedent for them possibly
• You dont get to boss around robots or threaten loss of jobs to make localities and states and federal governments treat you favorably or gloss over your business’/personal crimes

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.

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.

Very related to the premise of Job Simulator, where AI feels bad for bored humans so creates a museum where they can experience work.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-iMlQIGH8Y

“Would you like fries with that?”

-Human brings out the fries-

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.

The bulk of “AI layoffs” I agree are bullshit. They are using it as an excuse to increase quarterly profits while not signalling any weakness to investors, and in fact voicing layoffs in a way that make them sound competitive.

However … I work in software and am married to someone in the art industry. It’s definitely cut jobs in ways that might not be sustainable, but still cut jobs. They are barely hiring junior devs anymore. They think they can get away with tiny teams of seniors that use AI constantly.

And the art industry is changed forever. They simply don’t need certain artist jobs as much anymore. I know someone who would work with these people who buy images from photographers. They used to charge a ton for licensing. Now they skip the photographers and use AI and save a fuck ton of money doing it, and have actual artists clean up the AI artifacts. There is a lot less value in photography for certain industries.

And pay attention to writers who post about their job just disappearing. AI is being used to pump out writing material that used to be a career.

Is it sustainable? Maybe not. I think people have an eye for the AI slop and will spend less money on cheap looking services that prove they cut costs anywhere they can. But jobs have been cut.

It was obvious and proven already a few years ago:

CEOs are the first and most easy ones to replace by AI.

epstein associate making noise to distract from epstein relationship-GATES.

Per the article, he’s talking about doctors.

Mandatory Spies Like Us scene www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoe24aSvLtw

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.

This is just another DEI plan. I’m all for it. But it fails in practice.

Go away, Bill. Take your ill-gotten gains and retire into obscurity. It’ll save your life.

Maybe pay for his crimes from visiting Epstein island first. Then obscurity.

Is he talking about Russian prostitutes to cheat on his wife with?

Oh go wet yourself on a poxy tart, Bill. Nobody gives a shit what you think.

Don’t worry Bill, world war 3 will wipe everyone out before that happens.

they’ll propose anything but socialism

The only takeover will be that of Bill by no other than hell itself