←back to thread

AI adoption linked to 13% decline in jobs for young U.S. workers: study

(www.cnbc.com)
440 points pseudolus | 1 comments | 28 Aug 25 14:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.24s | source
Show context
softwaredoug ◴[29 Aug 25 02:34 UTC] No.45059431[source]▶
For similar forms of automation, isn’t 13% somewhat inline with what you’d expect?

For example, I wonder how many fewer juniors were needed when we had better programming languages and tools? Do certain programming practices lead to fewer new workers? How many new factory workers aren’t hired on the factory floor due to a form of automation?

replies(1): >>45059505 #
Refreeze5224 ◴[29 Aug 25 02:42 UTC] No.45059505[source]▶
How many weavers were put out of work by textile automation in the 18th century?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

replies(1): >>45060672 #
dijit ◴[29 Aug 25 05:51 UTC] No.45060672[source]▶
all of them, which not a brilliant argument when you discover where, who and how the majority of our clothes are made today to be fair.

I’ll upvote you though because I hadn’t read the whole backstory of the luddites before.

replies(1): >>45065513 #
1. Refreeze5224 ◴[29 Aug 25 15:38 UTC] No.45065513[source]▶
I think you missed my point. I was trying to point how similar the situation programmers face with AI is to the Luddites. People think of them as anti-technology, but they clearly weren't. HN feels a lot like a forum for weavers discussing the hot new automatic weavers and how excited they are for them, without realizing the true goal and scope.