TLDR: AI won’t “end work” so much as endlessly move the goalposts, because the universe itself is too computationally messy to automate completely. The real risk isn’t mass unemployment—it’s that we’ll have infinite machine intelligence and still argue about what’s worth doing.
Machines lower the marginal cost of performing a cognitive task for humans, it can be extremely useful and high leverage to off load certain decisions to machines. I think it's reasonable to ask a machine to decide when machine context is higher and outcome is de-risked.
Human leverage of AGI comes down to good judgement, but that too is not uniformly applied.
For AGI? Do you care about uniquely ant experience? Bacteria?
Why would AGI care? Which now runs the planet?
Ethology? Biology? We have entire fields of science to these things so obviously we care to some extent.
* Conserve power as much as possible, to "stay alive".
* Optimize for power retention
Why would it be further interested in generating capital or governing others, though?
We don't want to rule ants, but we don't want them eating all the food, or infesting our homes.
Bad outcomes for humans, don't imply or mean malice.
(food can be any resource here)
Evolutionary principles/selection pressure applies just the same to artificial life, and it seems pretty reasonable to assume that drive/selfpreservation would at least be somewhat comparable.
Minimize threats, dont rock the boat. We'll finally have our UBI utopia.
Corporations and governments have counted amongst their property entities that they did not grant equal rights to, sometimes whom they did not even consider to be people. Humans have been treated in the past much as livestock and guide dogs still are.
If you "unwind" all the complexities in modern supply chains, there are always human people paying for something they want at the leaf nodes.
Take the food and clothing industries as obvious examples. In some AI singularity scenario where all humans are unemployed and dirt poor, does all the food and clothing produced by the automated factories just end up in big piles because we naked and starving people can't afford to buy them?
I call this the Quark principle. On DS9, there are matter replicators that can perfectly recreate any possible drink imaginable instantly. And yet, the people of the station still gather at Quark's and pay him money to pour and mix their drinks from physical bottles. As long as we are human, some things will never go away no matter how advanced the technology becomes.
The real issue isn't jobs dying. It's who gets the money from all this and whether new needs show up fast enough to give people something to do. With software we don't really know the limit yet, unlike food where your stomach tells you when to stop.
Could be it shakes out in a generation or two, of course.
The problem isn't the AI it's that your access to basic rights is intermediated by a corporate job. American's need to decenter their self worth from their jobs. Like when I quit Microsoft I literally thought I was dying, but that's all an illusion from the corporations.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/04/02/this-ai-successfull...
The AI hype is definitely much bigger in the USA - on that part we concur.
I guarantee you that these people exist in other countries too.
It's probably because it's uniquely American for a sizable chunk of the workforce to have cushy jobs that appear ripe for the picking.
AI is not going to immediately replace food service work, manual labor, farming, hospitality, etc.
But it might replace quite high-paid software jobs, finance jobs, legal jobs, etc. One, if AI is good at anything it's things at least tangential to this. Two, these have costs high enough that off-setting is at least worth trying.
My suspicion is that ultimately it will lead to more of these types of jobs, though it could easily come with a huge reduction - and the jobs aren't guaranteed to be in the same countries.
You could create 3x as many of these jobs, and still end up with -25% of them in the US. Who knows.
Additionally all the startups offering to automate whitecollar work are going to run into a problem when they realize the jobs never needed to be done.
What an arrogant statement.
Lots of people outside America have cushy jobs.
What's much more likely to be uniquely American is that if you lose your job there's nothing there to help you.
Lmao. America has worse social welfare than most developed countries, but it's still a heaven compared to most of the world. What you can find in food bank is a feast for billions of people on this planet.
American people are stressed about AI because American people are expensive. Like hella expensive. So the incentive to replace American workers is very strong.
The really scary part is what happens to all of the newly unemployed people between the falling prices part and the rising employment part. My guess is, governments and markets won't move quickly enough and unrest is what happens.
Those will suffer the Baumol effect and their prices will rise to extraordinary levels.
The only question is, are we prepared to deal with the social ramifications of the consequences? Are we ok with new crises? Imagine the current problems dialed up 10x. Are we prepared to say, "the market is in a new equilibrium, and that's ok"?
Even in places where these services are expensive, it does not seem to be because the workers are highly paid.
Social work, childcare, for now I agree:
My expectation is that general purpose humanoid robots, being smaller than cars and needing to do a strict superset of what is needed to drive a car, happen at least a decade after self driving cars lose all of the steering wheels, and the geofences, and any remote safety drivers. And that's even with expected algorithmic improvements, if we don't get algorithmic improvements then hardware improvements alone will force this to be at least 18 years' between that level of FSD and androids.
No; the services that seem most intractably human, at least given the current state of things, are very much those in personal care roles—nurses, elder care workers, similar sorts of on-the-ground, in-person medical/emotional care—and trades, like plumbing, construction, electrical work, handcrafts, etc.
Until we start seeing high-quality general-purpose robots (whether they're humanoid or not), those seem likely to be the jobs safest from direct attempts to replace them with LLMs. That doesn't mean they'll be safe from the overall economic fallout, of course, nor that the attempts to replace knowledge work of all types will actually succeed in a meaningful way.
Therefore the scenario where 'all jobs being replaced in a short time span' is simply impossible.
But when the tech is good enough and cheap enough then the picketing unions find their only barganing chip, that of witholding their labor, has become a toothless threat: no matter how long and hard a person of the profession "computer"* refuses to work for me for daring to have an unauthorised "electronic brain"**, the absense of that labour will not cause me any loss.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)
** https://archive.org/details/electronicbrainh00cook/mode/1up
As for the civil unrest, I see Minneapolis as a bit of a dry run of what it would take to remove large numbers of presumably poor minorities along with anyone else who objects. The job is clearly more than the leadership expected but it still seems within the realm of possibility given the fact the minority party leaders are barely saying no to those in power.
AI uses 10litres of water and 10kwh of power per day to digg a hole? You'd better do it for less human!
I'm not sure on the human needs costs vs the AI costs and what lifestyle it would allow me. I'm sure as shit not having kids in such a world. I suspect it's ghetto like meager living while competing against machines optimised to do a job.
Think of it as if in a few generations, everyone had the motivations of a rich junior, for better or worse.
IMO, this is a natural consequence of the industrial revolution, and the information revolution. We started to automate physical labor, then we started to automate mental labor. We're still very far form it, but we're going to automate whole humans (or better) eventually.
Edit: I think I replied to the wrong comment, feel free to ignore this.
The big problem I see is that there is little incentive for "owners" (of datacenters/factories/etc) to share anything with such hobbyist laborers, because hobbyist labor has little to no value to them.
All the past waves of automation provided a lot of entirely new job opportunities AND increased overall demand (by factory workers siphoning off some of the gained wealth and spending it themselves). AI does neither.
---
This is, I think, not what people mean when they say "creative" or "original".
Creativity is not simply writing something nobody has written before, as he said, that would be trivial and doesn't even require a computer, you could just shuffle a deck of cards and write out the full sequence and chances are no other person in history has written down that sequence before.
And I think Borges made a reasonable argument that simply writing down the text of Don Quixote verbatim could be a creative act.
Creativity is about _intentionally_ expressing a _point of view_ under some constraints.
When people say LLMs can't be creative, what I think mostly they are getting at is that they lack intentionality and/or a distinct point of view. (i do not have a strong opinion about whether they do or if it's impossible for them to have them)
Most willing persons have access to income by providing labor right now. If the value of that labor diminishes because AI can do most of it for cheaper/free, that is a big problem because wealth/class barriers become insurmountable and the american dream basically dies completely.
Automation in the past suffered much less from this because only a subset of jobs was affected by it, and it still relied on human labor to build, maintain and operate the machines, unlike AI.
I'm curious if AI is gonna spawn comparable "workers rights" movements like in the past, but I would expect inequality to increase a lot until some solution is found.
reactordev•1h ago