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 history of technological development provides cause for optimism in the long run

I think it actually provides cause for pessimism: in the past those people had other kinds of jobs to move to. But this AI revolution makes it much harder to move to another job other than a menial one because a lot of the lower level office jobs are affected all at once. This creates a lot of downward pressure on fields that were already paying peanuts and where employers have realized they can now squeeze even further, either by cutting wages directly or by having more desperate entrants in the race to the bottom.

Going from agricultural work into technology was an improvement, going from office work to unskilled labor is a regression. Upward mobility is limited because there is less room there anyway and there too there will be more competition for fewer jobs.

So for the moment I don't really see the upside on a societal scale, even if for some individuals there are upsides.

>>jacque+Uo
> this AI revolution makes it much harder to move to another job other than a menial one because a lot of the lower level office jobs are affected all at once

If we automate away administration, there is a bonanza to be had. Every person would in essence be a start-up team. That's enough surplus to figure out a transition. I'm not optimistic about every political system finding the solution. But some will, and then it slowly spreads.

>>JumpCr+Dp
The number of people that want to be part of a start-up is limited, the number of people that want the responsibility that comes with being an entrepreneur is further limited. Those people that would like to be entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs, the rest is more than happy to just have a job and a stable life. Risk appetite and willingness to hyperfocus on one thing at the expense of the rest, including quality of life is something that varies widely from one individual to another.

HN is not an 'average' in this sense at all, more likely an extreme outlier. This is also why the 'gig economy' is such a huge step back.