←back to thread

788 points jsheard | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.879s | source
Show context
autoexec ◴[] No.42893484[source]
Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a way to get rid of it.

It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring into "features" that the public continues to reject at every opportunity.

At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of employees out of work and allow companies to use the massive amounts of data they've collected about us against us more effectively. All the AI being shoehorned into products and services now are mostly to test, improve, and advertise for the AI being used, not to provide any value for users who'd rather have nothing to do with it.

replies(34): >>42893546 #>>42893553 #>>42893562 #>>42893575 #>>42893674 #>>42893709 #>>42893714 #>>42893818 #>>42893837 #>>42893917 #>>42893948 #>>42894013 #>>42894084 #>>42894156 #>>42894171 #>>42894341 #>>42894345 #>>42894380 #>>42894607 #>>42894864 #>>42894878 #>>42895079 #>>42895251 #>>42895337 #>>42895352 #>>42895481 #>>42895750 #>>42896211 #>>42896410 #>>42896427 #>>42896655 #>>42896688 #>>42900751 #>>42903277 #
basscomm ◴[] No.42893562[source]
> At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast amounts of employees out of work

It's this part.

Salaries and benefits are expensive. A computer program doesn't need a salary, retirement benefits, insurance, retirement, doesn't call in sick, doesn't take vacations, works 24/7, etc.

replies(6): >>42893725 #>>42894142 #>>42894952 #>>42895083 #>>42896577 #>>42900714 #
1. Eisenstein ◴[] No.42894952[source]
Who do they think will buy their products if there are no employees anywhere? Businesses, even business facing ones, eventually rely on consumers at some point to buy things. What can be gained by putting everyone out of work?
replies(1): >>42895428 #
2. balder1991 ◴[] No.42895428[source]
I remain skeptical of the prediction that AI will simply “take over jobs”. If AI becomes advanced enough to perform tasks traditionally done by skilled professionals, it would instead democratize access to capabilities that are currently gatekept by wealth and resources (since right now you can’t have human employees, but you’d be able to have AI workers for cheap).

In this scenario, individuals without substantial capital could leverage AI to achieve outcomes that today require the resources and influence of wealthy founders. It might do the opposite of what CEOs seem to think: challenge existing power structures and create a more level playing field.

replies(1): >>42896667 #
3. glitchinc ◴[] No.42896667[source]
Isn’t this position predicated on the assumption that individuals without substantial capital “own” an AI?

When someone uses an AI they do not own, they are (maybe) receiving a benefit in exchange for improving that AI and associated intellectual property / competitive advantage of the person or entity that owns the AI—-and subsequently improving the final position of the AI’s owner.

The better an AI becomes, the more valuable it becomes, and the more likely that the owner of the AI would want to either restrict access to the AI and extract additional value from users (e.g. via paid subscription model) or leverage the AI to develop new or improve existing revenue streams—-even if doing so is to the detriment of AI users. After all… a sufficiently-trained “AGI” AI could (in theory) be capable of outsmarting anyone that uses it, know more about its users than its users consciously know about themselves, and could act faster than any human.

While I share in your hope, I think it is unfortunately far more likely that AIs will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots and will evolve into some of the most financially and intellectually oppressive technology ever used by humans (willingly or not).