←back to thread

440 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.299s | source
Show context
jimmont ◴[] No.45059611[source]
Organizations are choosing to eliminate workers rather than amplify them with AI because they'd rather own 100% of diminished capacity than share proceeds from exponentially increased capacity. That's the rent extraction model consuming its own productive infrastructure. The Stanford study documents organizations systematically choosing inferior economic strategies because their rent-extraction frameworks cannot conceptualize workers as productive assets to amplify. This reveals that these organizations are economic rent-seekers that happen to have productive workers, not production companies that happen to extract rents. When forced to choose between preserving rent extraction structures or maximizing value creation, they preserve extraction even at the cost of destroying productive capacity. So what comes next?
replies(11): >>45059745 #>>45059774 #>>45059838 #>>45059845 #>>45059868 #>>45059973 #>>45060115 #>>45060131 #>>45060415 #>>45061533 #>>45062067 #
1. jonahx ◴[] No.45060131[source]
Your claim is not supported by the paper:

"Furthermore, employment declines are concentrated in occupations where AI is more likely to automate, rather than augment, human labor."

No mention of rent-seeking.

No evidence they are being economically short-sighted.

> they'd rather own 100% of diminished capacity than share proceeds from exponentially increased capacity

They're using cheap AI to replace more expensive humans. There's no reason to think they are missing some exponential expansion opportunity that keeping those humans would achieve, and every reason to think otherwise.