zlacker

>>Dyslex+(OP)
This is my concern with AI in general. Cost, both real and monetary. Right now Microsoft and VCs are dumping money into AI operation to help with growth and adoption. What happens when AI's business focus moves from cost to grow to cost to serve? Will all these business who integrated in AI suddenly be saddled with huge bills? What if your product depends on AI, and suddenly is not profitable to operate? Anecdotally I have already seen people pull back AI features, because it turned out to be too expensive to serve in the long run.

I already pay for a GPT subscription, and its reliability is one of the worst of any product I pay for. The novelty keeps me paying, but I can't imagine building a business on it.

>>dexwiz+V
They will charge the salary of the worker they are replacing with an EC2 style AI simulacrum.

Employers will save health, logistics, HR, etc.

Governments will have to pay for unemployment

Just the same as always - privatize the gains

>>gmerc+vk
In other words, if the people providing the AI demand the same money as the workers it replaces, it doesn't seem like society actually benefits.

>>riscy+ym
> if the people providing the AI demand the same money as the workers it replaces, it doesn't seem like society actually benefits

Those people no longer have jobs. That sounds bad, but consider they can now do something else. (Ad infinitum this is obviously a problem. But the history of technological development provides cause for optimism in the long run.)

>>JumpCr+on
The average american has 6 months of savings for unemployment. I don’t think there’s any cause for optimism on that timeline

>>gmerc+xo
The majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. On average, American's may have sixth months of savings, but that is due to the long tail of wealth distribution. Only about 1 out of 4 of them actually have six months or more of savings.