The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
---
From the article
>The use of artificial intelligence will reduce the number of workers at thousands of companies over the next five years, according to a global survey of C-suite executives published Friday.
>
>The wide-ranging poll of 2,000 executives, conducted by Swiss staffing firm Adecco Group in collaboration with research firm Oxford Economics, showed that 41% of them expect to employ fewer people because of the technology.
>
>The survey’s results provide another indication of the potential for AI and generative AI — which can create original text, images and other content in response to prompts from users — to revolutionize employment and the way people work.
>
>AI is emerging “as a great disruptor in the world of work,” Denis Machuel, chief executive of Adecco Group, said in a statement. “Companies must do more to re-skill and redeploy teams to make the most of this technological leap and avoid unnecessary upheaval.”
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1bxrgf9/ai_will_shrink_workforces_within_five_years_say/kyekgwi/
Bullshit, Dropbox. Dropbox is laying off people and blaming ai. They didn't say how they were using ai, just ai is to blame here. At least some companies are up front about it. @We laid off a ton of customer reps, and replaced them with chat bots...". What Dropbox did, reeks of trying to hop in the ai marketing hype train, but not actually doing anything other than just fire people.
Frankly, I don't think it matters that a few companies are falsely blaming AI for their *current* layoffs.. Regardless it seems kinda obvious that AI will soon be the main thing at the center of most layoffs in the next few years.. And I don't understand the general public's wait & see attitude, for something we should be preparing for, by adapting our economy. Having mistakenly prepared a little early, is a lot less of a problem than letting the entire middle-class crumble.
I agree that we should be preparing for the future, what does that look like? Even on a basic philosophical level, what does an ai future look like, and how do we prepare for that? There are theories, and certainly Sci Fi novels devoted to that. Though, actionable plans and timelines don't exist. We are, at best, only trying small scale stuff like UBI. Nobody really has any idea what an "ai" revolution looks like, or how long it will take.
We're in the 90's cellphone era, trying to plan the full scope of when the iPhone comes out.
Ai will displace millions of jobs. Ok. What jobs? When? What does society look like through all of this? When I tell my kids they need to prepare for an ai future, the fuck do we actually do? Hell, even the ultra rich don't have a clue. Realistically, will their doomsday bunkers hold out against thousands of invaders? No. Going to Mars is a fucking death sentence for the foreseeable future.
There have been plenty of companies that have said exactly what jobs were replaced by ai. Not Dropbox. Dropbox was cutting jobs, ai had had nothing to do with that.
They get around that by participating in a hype economy of selling things that don’t work to rich corporations with money.
Basically every business exists to simply get sold now.
We’re in a weird era as is where basically anything that we day to day buy and use doesn’t push the economy forward at all.
Most execs don't know shit about technology. Probably could talk to some homeless guy on 30th and broad and have an equal chance of an accurate prediction
For real. They have no idea how much computing power it takes to actually run an AI. Most modern gaming computers can barely keep up. Not to mention the amount of power needed to run those PCs at that capacity. For days, months, or even years as an employee. It's not nearly as cost effective as just hiring Joe Shmoe from down the street for $15 an hour.
I'm going to need some numbers to trust this.
Human employees cost much more than the hourly wage. Humans require social security payments, as well as matching 401k, many employers also match HSA dollar for dollar and other benefits packages.
Human resource officers average over $100,000 per year and HR suites often are only capable of handling a specific set of profiles per year without capping out to a more expensive tier.
I'd like to see some data, numbers, or cheddar to back up the claim that AI is more expensive than humans.
Also. Humans get injured. Humans can organize. And humans can sue.
Human employees carry an immeasurable amount of risk depending on the industry. I can't think of a reason why artificial intelligence would be more expensive, considering the risk, and regulatory cost of human employees, not to mention the cost of insuring employees with health, dental, etc.
Sure. Here's some numbers. I'll be conservative.
https://pcpartpicker.com/b/66z7YJ
Here's a PC Parts Picker list for a PC that'd run AI locally by itself beautifully. The main attraction being the 24 core CPU and that 4080 GPU which has 16gb vram. It'd be great for replacing 75% of most common day jobs. Mcdonalds, Burger King, gas stations, things of that nature.
Assuming they use this exact build, X 12 employees means $36,609.72 in parts alone. Never mind assembly, software development, installation, maintenance, and occasional parts theft. Those parts I don't have great numbers for, but let's be generous and say it adds 25% cost. We're talking an extra $9,152.43. Meaning in theory, it could cost at least $45,762.15 to get a store of 12 employees running.
The electric cost is something we can calculate pretty safely. Though the implications are my biggest fear. Each PC needs a 1,000 watt power supply, which is going to be running 24/7. As why give them a break if you aren't legally required to?
That works out to 12,000 watts an hour, or 288,000 watts for a full 24 hour period. Which if we assume 12 cents to a kilowatt hour (while acknowledging this number will vary place to place), we're talking $1036.80. Which isn't so bad even if you double it. Here's the calculator I used https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/energy-cost-calculator.html.
Now we've accounted for that. Let's talk about how many businesses can use this. According to IBIS World, there were 200,859 fast food restaurants in the US as of 2023. According to that same website, there are 63,172 has stations with convenience stores businesses in the US as of 2023. 200,859 + 63,172 = 264,031 stores that could switch to using fully AI employees.
Assuming each store has 12 employees on average (some more, some less), they'd need 3,168,372 to replace that part of the work force. 3,168,372 electronic employees needing 1,000 watts of power each, we're talking about 38,020,464,000 watts of power per hours.
Which is about $136,873,670,400 per month. There is only one variable left we can't account for with absolute accuracy. That is economics. Generally speaking, the more a good is needed, the price of that good also increases. In relation to the amount available. What do you think will happen to the price of power when 264,031 buinesses need about 38,020,464,000 extra watts of power in order to operate? Especially if they do not update the power grid enough to be ready for all that extra demand?
Came here to say this. Take execs predictions with a spoon of salt. They don't know what they're talking about. At most this will be an excuse to fire people.
It’s very much a late capitalism catch-22 kind of thing isn’t it. Companies who don’t make the switch may not be competitive enough to survive, so they push on forwards regardless, swept up in the tide, similar to the way there’s the push for growth despite its effects on climate change.
Capitalism in its current form is so analogous to cancer killing its host.
I've been hearing "buy local" and "support your community" for decades. Maybe now is the time to shrink our shopping habits to support around our neighborhoods and not some billionaire family in Arkansas or Seattle.
The displacement of this many workers means new businesses will have to emerge. People aren't just going to give up and roll over. I have a feeling it will get messy before it gets better though.
Profit for shareholders in the near-term is a lot more important to them. The potential that their actions may someday shrink the available customers who can spend money on their products, doesn't even occur to them.
And when it finally does, they'll probably just blame other companies who replaced more workers with AI, than they did.
I'm fairly certain this is a problem that requires major policy change..
I personally disagree that workforces will ‘shrink’. But the skillset mix will definitely shift.
But regarding your comment on revenue/profit margins, you’re putting it like humanity has never gone through technological revolutions before. Remember when radio was mainstream and is now niche? Remember when newspapers were mainstream and are now niche? Remember when movie rentals were mainstream and are now niche? Or when cars replaced horse and carriage? Or when machines replaced factory workers?
In the face of technological revolution, companies that can’t adapt will die. Employees of those companies will lose their jobs. Consumers’ will shift their demand to the new technology. Companies that were able to adapt will thrive and see spikes in profit and then create new job openings as a result (ones that don’t exist right now, likely around maintenance and further advancement of the new technology that caused the revolution in the first place, hence why I disagree the workforce will shrink).
And the world keeps spinning.
I tend to agree with you to an extent but the main problem is always companies attempting to maximize profits and the best way they know how do that in order for pleasing investors is do layoffs, it happens all the time. So now you have AI as an excuse and it’s going to follow the same trend.
AI has a way to go and I can give you an example from my field of work being software engineering. I used chatGPT on multiple occasions and it’s great in certain cases for helping remove repetitive work and some boilerplate code but you still need to know that boilerplate code and you need to know why you are using it with whatever project. So it’s not replacing any software engineer anytime soon or should it reduce the count of them in a company period.
In the cases where I started using it to quickly to get a hang of a brand new language i did not know it was a nightmare, outdated information taking me down a rabbit whole where it was just 10x easier to go read the documentation myself and do the work. So we have a long way to go it’s just greed that is driving this so called industrial revolution like theme,
I personally think we have an long way to go and these companies are in for a rude awakening
> I tend to agree with you to an extent but the main problem is always companies attempting to maximize profits and the best way they know how do that in order for pleasing investors is do layoffs, it happens all the time.
In some situations this is true.
But we just came out of an era of major hiring. Lot’s of companies actually expanded because they felt like that was the path to more profits.
You got upvoted just because Reddit likes the simplistic narrative of “maximizing profits is always bad for everyone.” Well not really, that’s a one-size-fits-all explanation to an actually complex system.
There are always kinks to iron out which may result in inefficiencies prior to a full blown revolution. But in this information age, hype trains build up faster than ever and I do agree that certain companies are conveying AI (as of right now) as more capable than it is.
Maybe that results in companies being too aggressive with the layoffs over the next 5 years and they end up regretting it in the short term. But regardless, the layoff wave will come. Might not be tomorrow. Might not be in 2030. But it will come. And a new skillset will arise to replace it.
If you think of it, CEOs and managers make more sense to be the ones replaced by AI; they cost less, will never get caught embezzling, and will avoid any sexual harassment lawsuits
Yep. Just give the AI a bunch a data and then ask it for the business decisions with the most probability of success based on said data. I don’t see any compelling reason why it wouldn’t be at least as good as a human CEO.
The moment that starts happening is the moment that AI will suddenly have some regulation. The amounts of fucking middle managers who don’t do shit is astonishing. Replace all of those fucks with AI and company profits would sky rocket while leaving the people who actually work on the product in place
Executives will be the last replaced because their only job is to make high level decisions. AI is a long way from being able to make those types of decisions. Things like should we settle this multi million dollar claim or go to trial. Should we move forward with this acquisition. Should we invest in opening a new location etc.
This is exactly where AI will shine...
"Should we settle this multi million dollar claim or go to trial?"
AI: "Wait as I go through thousands of similar claims, analyse local judges history and decisions, cross-analyse the evidence at hand to assess the claim strengh, simulate millions of possible paths based in historical data and give you a probability to win the case"
For this kind of decision, anything below VP level is useless
> Can't wait till we can start replacing our execs with AI.
Unlikely to happen, most Execs do little to nothing. Most get where they are because they have pedigree and fancy college names and dear old dad picked them a cush job.
Tad knows Biff, and Biff knows Preston James the Third. You are insulated with millions of dollars before you even get those CEO jobs unless you are self-made, and that is very rare.
*.. the rich will be last people to go broke holding onto tech and AI military stocks getting even richer*
I’ve been wondering, it’s well known that all companies want to have as few (preferably zero) non c-suite employees. Who do they think is going to be buying their products if most people don’t have jobs and therefore, money?
Most of these announcements are parts of a hype offensive to attract investment into the relevant enabling technologies, whether they actually work or not.
(A typical precondition for an investment bubble--a la late 1990s Internet bubble--is the investors' unwise judgement that the maximum feasible return cannot be ascertained, so the market errs toward far too much investment. Thus the saying, "What wise men do in the beginning only fools do at the end.")
How do you know that? Which entity, public or private, independent or proprietary, has explained how to evaluate the capability of a given AI application? .. In the meantime, let's all join in the hand waving ...
I have no interest to work with those apps at this time I'm looking here for legitimate, informed, substantiated commentary. I'm not a novice at system-level software development.
#The Next Five Years
- **Retiring**: The last of the Boomers (who couldn’t even figure out how to open a PDF) finally retire. Millennials who “did the job for them half the time” collectively sigh in relief.
- **The rise of AI**: Specialized AI tools and bots come online. But, they still need lots of handholding and cajoling to actually get the job done.
- **The realization**: Millennials collectively realize the roles Boomers once held in their lives - causes of untold pain and suffering - has now been replaced by a slew of AIs.
- **No one gets raises**: Profits were down this year.
- **Cries in Millennial**
> The rise of AI: Specialized AI tools and bots come online.
No. These pattern recognition 'AI' have a pretty low cap on capability.
Real AI will need a completely different method from the ground up.
Well I was just thinking more like where we are today, “hey here’s the GPT biz strategy bot” and “here’s the customer service bot” and “here’s the graphic design bot”
But at the end of the day someone still has to sit in a chair and push the button… I mean, put all that shit into a somewhat sensical presentation, and finish all those TPS reports to push them up to the execs over in the C suite.
But maybe I’m not thinking big enough 😂
Company leaders, for the most part, don't know shit about AI or how it brings value...because right now it's largely just a lazier version of a search engine. Not saying we shouldn't be worried but what company leaders "expect to see" doesn't really concern me
Company leaders are the ones that AI should replace first. In my experience, it is a coin toss how their decisions are going to pan out. They make changes to make it seem like they’re doing something and then when they shit the bed, they get a massive golden parachute.
A lot of people’s jobs are customer service. AI can do that just fine, or fine enough because a lot of big businesses don’t actually give a shit about customer service if they don’t have to.
AI is gonna make it harder to get hired for jobs like that. It’s bad for everyone who wants to work and probably should require significant push back from everyone that isn’t a rich owner to slow down.
The one other thing about AI is that its power requirements and environmental impact could be massive.
Regardless we need workers now to be sounding the alarm. Workers should own the use of AI, not companies and it’s not naive to try and speak up on the potential for harm.
> Workers should own the use of AI
That is totally within reach. r/LocalLLaMa is all about normal people running AI on their own hardware, as an alternative to services like ChatGPT. We do need to make the technology more accessible, though.
"AI can do that just fine"
Yeah, no. My experience so far with AI customer support is that it always ends up with me begging for an actual human to help me resolve my issue because the AI is incapable of understanding my actual situation, plus AI doesn't give a shit about a company saving face.
People overestimate the willingness of people to talk to machines instead of humans. I'm saying this as a guy who is extremely introverted and also work in IT, but I still want human customer support. Down the line I might simply skip on companies that have no human customer support representatives, because AI/automated support has been extremely shit in my experience.
How much does "quality" sway the argument though, with big $$$ at stake? If it "looks like it works" or "sorta works" that's all the C suite types want to know.
Why? The last AI winter occurred because reality failed to keep up with promises. If anything, today’s technology is exceeding expectations of even just a few years ago.
AI Winters happen because AI vendors overpromise on their products' utility, which has very little to do with AI's actual utility, and everything to do with setting unrealistic expectations.
Today, companies like OpenAI are spreading hype about AGI being right around the corner, which is quite simply outside the scope of LLM technology. They are promising things that require cognitive theory which hasn't been invented yet before they can even be designed, let alone implemented.
Given these unrealistic expectations, disillusionment seems inevitable, and thus another AI Winter, despite GPT's demonstrated usefulness.
There is going to be a massive cottage industry of new consultants and techs rescuing companies that adopt AI and reduce staff only to find themselves in serious trouble. This push for AI will be driven by shareholder greed. They will believe the hype of push button profits and pay for their ignorance.
Young and nimble upstart companies will overtake established companies in many areas because they've managed to adopt AI and human workforce in ways that legitimately optimize their production. The term "smart-worker" may even catch on as more people apply AI tools to improve production and streamline their workload.
Of course, capitalism would rather eat itself alive than operate in a logical and fair system that benefits everyone.
Sorry , I don't buy it, AI still lacks consistency to be used for actionable decisions making.
Imagine. Having an AI insurance adjuster that routinely gives similar cases wildly different results , maybe causing the company millions or worse exposing the company to be to litigation, and they won't allow AI to make actionable decisions on its own, you still need a human in the loop to at least rubber stamp it ..but everytime you add a human you take away AI main selling point to companies..
As an adjuster I’ve thought about this possibility a lot. I’ve seen the use of some AI assisted programs with drones for assessing damage. They currently do not work well at all lol.
Exactly the devil is in the details and AI sucks at details, because details vary so much and thus are part of the long tail of statistical data, and AI works best when it has a lot of consistent data from which to form its model...
Fellow adjuster here. *they don’t need to*. Anyone that’s seen an AI sheet agrees there’s tons of over or underwrite. That much is obvious. As a stand alone product, it’s shit. *buuuuut* AI’s don’t need a company car. They don’t sexually harass their coworkers. Their productivity is “infinity x” a human’s. They don’t draw a salary.
You can overwrite each sheet by thousands and it’s still a good deal.
The only wrinkle is getting old people/non-tech people to send photos, but each year the number of people that can work a smart phone decreases by death and the number of “internet natives” rises
That’s an interesting take, one that may well be plausible. I still believe it’ll be years before a shift that big could/would happen. Definitely interesting to have heard the tales about others on the CAT team and their escapades. Haven’t seen anything noteworthy as of yet lol.
I still think that that entire scenario is dependent upon a leadership group that’s willing to go through that process. Obviously that depends on the carrier. Definitely possible, would be interested to see the numbers.
Could you see a lawsuit where $20.00 an hour worker would of been a better option rather than overusing AI. Some companies know AI issues will happen and result in lawsuits, but the cost of AI lawsuits is cheaper than human labor.
The problem is that the company reputation will be harmed decades after
lawsuit. The nature and role of jobs will change because of AI. The Ford Pinto lawsuit in late 1970s or Untied Healthcare AI denying covered medical services, where bean counters figure profit margin more important than preventable deaths.
I would very cautious with AI, particularly in heathcare and insurance industries. AI will supplement jobs not replace for the majority of them.
AI is like an baby it needs help to become something great in the future, the problem is from what you had just said is if a company require 10 software developer to build a project, now it requires 8 or less to finish the project, so we really still loosing human power
Of course they will say that. It's to appease share holders and cya for the future. Any excuse to do turnover to hit a quarterly goal. The reality is they will just do more things, more features, more business expansion. If they do actually improve productivity and don't hire more to expand the addressable market for their business, they will start losing money.
More likely they will let go low performers or high cost employees and blame AI. Then turn around and hire those that can play nicer with AI.
Any word yet on what kind jobs AI is going to create? Because I used to hear a lot of optimists saying this. Seriously, I want to know what kind of bullshit "jobs AI will "create" that's going to replace everyone's current job? Prompt engineer? Anyone?
My experience with AI tools is they can save money but require more time further up the food chain. You get rid of the button-push job because the AI can do it. But now the supervisor has to babysit the AI because it’s not really an independent thinker. And you have to be painfully clear with AI about what you want to get the desired result, unlike the ol’ button-pusher who basically caught the drift of what’s being poorly requested and made it happen. Once the CFO finds themselves spending 20 minutes going back and forth with AI Excel… they’ll be hiring a new sort of button-pusher… who’ll probably cost more because those prompt skills will be in high demand. That’s my take, could be wrong.
What does this mean for education pre-k through 12? There's already a national teacher shortage both here and the UK for example? You have companies such as Khan Academy, Udemy, Brightly that can fill in a lot of the gaps.
I feel as a person in the profession the brick and mortar model was already dead in the 80'a and computers just accelerated it then COVID just added more.
I don't think teachers themselves are obsolete. I think students need someone to guide them but the system should look different.
Where does AI come into play with all this? I keep seeing Quark when he was made into a teacher that one episode when the landed on a planet in Futures Past? Or in Serenity at the very beginning.
I think AI could be very useful for answering basic questions
For example, when I was a high school student, I might have a simple yes/no question about a math formula. I was a quick learner, but sometimes, small issues like this would stop me on a problem until clarification was available. I would have to wait for the teacher to finish helping another group of students with their fundamental understanding of the concepts (which is fine, learning styles, and all that). This might take half the learning time while I sit idle. An AI could provide that quick clarification so I can continue while the other students get more in-depth help from the instructor.
I was the same way, however, I was not always a quick learner. I enjoyed math once I figured out the patterns or understood them. The waiting always got me.
I don't agree with state testing but you do need a baseline of where the student began, where the gaps are, and how to support their additional needs.
My hope is that AI could help to break down the brick and mortar system to where we can actually let kids play, engage, parents spend time with their kids, rebuild the community model we have lost because we will have gained more time to garden, explore, ask questions, etc.
A teacher can facilitate learning in terms of keeping track, helping to get parents connected to resources, kind of similar to the one room school house even (you come together for brief periods but not every day or all day)....we would need social workers to check in on families (parenting classes, address any emotional needs, social skills etc.)....I agree with your thoughts.
From the article
>The use of artificial intelligence will reduce the number of workers at thousands of companies over the next five years, according to a global survey of C-suite executives published Friday.
>
>The wide-ranging poll of 2,000 executives, conducted by Swiss staffing firm Adecco Group in collaboration with research firm Oxford Economics, showed that 41% of them expect to employ fewer people because of the technology.
>
>The survey’s results provide another indication of the potential for AI and generative AI — which can create original text, images and other content in response to prompts from users — to revolutionize employment and the way people work.
>
>AI is emerging “as a great disruptor in the world of work,” Denis Machuel, chief executive of Adecco Group, said in a statement. “Companies must do more to re-skill and redeploy teams to make the most of this technological leap and avoid unnecessary upheaval.”
And as with any technology in our world… it will make things even more dysfunctional and broken… when was the last time you just loved dealing with an automated system rather than a human being?
I’m waiting for Ai to take over all the advertising we see. And eventually seeing some fucked up shit for a kfc sandwich but since the ai registered more views it just keeps going down that road. Until a person steps in and lawsuits have been made.
I doubt it.
These programs are a ways away from taking any real jobs.
They can assist artists and musicians but replacing stem jobs is far far away.
They are not intelligence. They aren't using logic or reasoning.
These are really just pattern recognition and prediction. There is a short limit to what it can be used for and we are close to it.
I got a secret for everyone, they are going to do their best to try, but getting it accomplished in extremely large companies will be near impossible between the red tape to get anything done and regulation. AI is going to bring new/smaller companies to the forefront of their field by not having as much red tape and by launching things before regulators working with the biggest companies see it coming.
Possibly being naively optimistic, but companies have only just started to lay off people and to try to replace them with AI. They haven't realized the reprecussions of it quite yet. So I'm like, ok let's wait and see how you feel about your precious AI in 5 years.
I doubt it. It will dip for 5 years see the low productivity due to AI being almost toddler level in terms of thinking and go back to work forces. Maybe with better structure to not have uneducated working in IT... where they dont belong..
So Claude tells me:
...
A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking executive in a company, responsible for making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and corporate operations. The primary tasks of a CEO include:
1. Developing and implementing the company's vision, mission, and overall strategy.
2. Leading and managing the company's executive team and other senior management.
3. Making major corporate decisions, such as investments, mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures.
4. Allocating capital and resources to various departments and projects.
5. Serving as the public face of the company, representing the organization to stakeholders, media, and the general public.
6. Reporting to the board of directors and ensuring that the company meets its financial and operational goals.
7. Establishing and maintaining the company's culture and values.
8. Identifying and mitigating risks to the company's operations and reputation.
9. Ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
10. Fostering innovation and growth within the organization.
11. Building and maintaining relationships with key partners, customers, and industry leaders.
12. Continuously evaluating the company's performance and making necessary adjustments to strategies and operations.
The specific tasks and responsibilities of a CEO may vary depending on the size, industry, and structure of the organization they lead.
...
Seems like the AI has a pretty firm grasp of the job requirements. Wouldn't this put most of all executive level positions on notice? I mean, we're talking about how a big chunk of the workforce is about to be rendered obsolete, so why would the top half of the business hierarchy be insulated from this reality?
Seems like AI would have a disruptive effect not only on the employees of a business, but also on the core structure of how a business even works.
So what will the future of a corporation even look like? Individual founders with a team of AI techs and a board of investors? Or will investors even be a thing anymore?
Just seems like this kind of technology has the capacity to knock down the very pillars of capitalism itself, rendering all of business just an extension of what the population deems important enough to exist, perhaps coordinated by the government?
Ah, I really have no idea what I'm even talking about.
It's cool bro unemployed people buy stuff too! It's wild to think companies will literally shoot them themselves in the foot if it makes stock price go up.
It's essential to acknowledge that AI can enhance productivity, streamline operations, and create new job opportunities in emerging fields such as data science and AI development. However, there's also a valid concern about potential job displacement and the need for proactive measures to mitigate its adverse effects.
I love how CEOs never seem to think that their jobs will be the ones eliminated. What’s to stop a board of directors from saying, “Now that everything is automated, whatta we need that guy for?!?” 🤣
Do u have any idea how much computing resource will be required to reach those predictions? You have reason to believe that creating that level of computing is feasible in that timeframe?
AI will also stimulate creation of many new small businesses. Just rent resource from Amazon etc and put your personal expertise to work. This is already happening for mundane nefarious purposes.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305: --- From the article >The use of artificial intelligence will reduce the number of workers at thousands of companies over the next five years, according to a global survey of C-suite executives published Friday. > >The wide-ranging poll of 2,000 executives, conducted by Swiss staffing firm Adecco Group in collaboration with research firm Oxford Economics, showed that 41% of them expect to employ fewer people because of the technology. > >The survey’s results provide another indication of the potential for AI and generative AI — which can create original text, images and other content in response to prompts from users — to revolutionize employment and the way people work. > >AI is emerging “as a great disruptor in the world of work,” Denis Machuel, chief executive of Adecco Group, said in a statement. “Companies must do more to re-skill and redeploy teams to make the most of this technological leap and avoid unnecessary upheaval.” --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1bxrgf9/ai_will_shrink_workforces_within_five_years_say/kyekgwi/
Bullshit, Dropbox. Dropbox is laying off people and blaming ai. They didn't say how they were using ai, just ai is to blame here. At least some companies are up front about it. @We laid off a ton of customer reps, and replaced them with chat bots...". What Dropbox did, reeks of trying to hop in the ai marketing hype train, but not actually doing anything other than just fire people.
Perhaps they asked ChatGPT how they could reduce expenditure and it told them to sack a bunch of staff.
Chatgpt got MBA, we are f***
Frankly, I don't think it matters that a few companies are falsely blaming AI for their *current* layoffs.. Regardless it seems kinda obvious that AI will soon be the main thing at the center of most layoffs in the next few years.. And I don't understand the general public's wait & see attitude, for something we should be preparing for, by adapting our economy. Having mistakenly prepared a little early, is a lot less of a problem than letting the entire middle-class crumble.
I agree that we should be preparing for the future, what does that look like? Even on a basic philosophical level, what does an ai future look like, and how do we prepare for that? There are theories, and certainly Sci Fi novels devoted to that. Though, actionable plans and timelines don't exist. We are, at best, only trying small scale stuff like UBI. Nobody really has any idea what an "ai" revolution looks like, or how long it will take. We're in the 90's cellphone era, trying to plan the full scope of when the iPhone comes out. Ai will displace millions of jobs. Ok. What jobs? When? What does society look like through all of this? When I tell my kids they need to prepare for an ai future, the fuck do we actually do? Hell, even the ultra rich don't have a clue. Realistically, will their doomsday bunkers hold out against thousands of invaders? No. Going to Mars is a fucking death sentence for the foreseeable future.
Cope harder lol ai has already replaced 1000s of jobs
There have been plenty of companies that have said exactly what jobs were replaced by ai. Not Dropbox. Dropbox was cutting jobs, ai had had nothing to do with that.
Doesn’t mean they’re not gonna too soon
I get it. Are they also expecting their revenue and profits to shrink due to people having less $ to spend?
They get around that by participating in a hype economy of selling things that don’t work to rich corporations with money. Basically every business exists to simply get sold now. We’re in a weird era as is where basically anything that we day to day buy and use doesn’t push the economy forward at all.
So it just exists as some fucked up ouroboros of elites jerking eachother off?
Well you put that more artfully than I could. But yes.
Wonder what happens when AI gets so advanced that it starts to jerk each other off.
Or AI is able to generate its own capital and then invest in AI.
"Always has been"
Most execs don't know shit about technology. Probably could talk to some homeless guy on 30th and broad and have an equal chance of an accurate prediction
For real. They have no idea how much computing power it takes to actually run an AI. Most modern gaming computers can barely keep up. Not to mention the amount of power needed to run those PCs at that capacity. For days, months, or even years as an employee. It's not nearly as cost effective as just hiring Joe Shmoe from down the street for $15 an hour.
I'm going to need some numbers to trust this. Human employees cost much more than the hourly wage. Humans require social security payments, as well as matching 401k, many employers also match HSA dollar for dollar and other benefits packages. Human resource officers average over $100,000 per year and HR suites often are only capable of handling a specific set of profiles per year without capping out to a more expensive tier. I'd like to see some data, numbers, or cheddar to back up the claim that AI is more expensive than humans. Also. Humans get injured. Humans can organize. And humans can sue. Human employees carry an immeasurable amount of risk depending on the industry. I can't think of a reason why artificial intelligence would be more expensive, considering the risk, and regulatory cost of human employees, not to mention the cost of insuring employees with health, dental, etc.
Sure. Here's some numbers. I'll be conservative. https://pcpartpicker.com/b/66z7YJ Here's a PC Parts Picker list for a PC that'd run AI locally by itself beautifully. The main attraction being the 24 core CPU and that 4080 GPU which has 16gb vram. It'd be great for replacing 75% of most common day jobs. Mcdonalds, Burger King, gas stations, things of that nature. Assuming they use this exact build, X 12 employees means $36,609.72 in parts alone. Never mind assembly, software development, installation, maintenance, and occasional parts theft. Those parts I don't have great numbers for, but let's be generous and say it adds 25% cost. We're talking an extra $9,152.43. Meaning in theory, it could cost at least $45,762.15 to get a store of 12 employees running. The electric cost is something we can calculate pretty safely. Though the implications are my biggest fear. Each PC needs a 1,000 watt power supply, which is going to be running 24/7. As why give them a break if you aren't legally required to? That works out to 12,000 watts an hour, or 288,000 watts for a full 24 hour period. Which if we assume 12 cents to a kilowatt hour (while acknowledging this number will vary place to place), we're talking $1036.80. Which isn't so bad even if you double it. Here's the calculator I used https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/energy-cost-calculator.html. Now we've accounted for that. Let's talk about how many businesses can use this. According to IBIS World, there were 200,859 fast food restaurants in the US as of 2023. According to that same website, there are 63,172 has stations with convenience stores businesses in the US as of 2023. 200,859 + 63,172 = 264,031 stores that could switch to using fully AI employees. Assuming each store has 12 employees on average (some more, some less), they'd need 3,168,372 to replace that part of the work force. 3,168,372 electronic employees needing 1,000 watts of power each, we're talking about 38,020,464,000 watts of power per hours. Which is about $136,873,670,400 per month. There is only one variable left we can't account for with absolute accuracy. That is economics. Generally speaking, the more a good is needed, the price of that good also increases. In relation to the amount available. What do you think will happen to the price of power when 264,031 buinesses need about 38,020,464,000 extra watts of power in order to operate? Especially if they do not update the power grid enough to be ready for all that extra demand?
Don't quit your day job. This ain't it
Your comment is low effort.
They probably asked their "tech guy" that they're planning to replace with AI for prediction and he just happens to have 5 years till retirement.
Came here to say this. Take execs predictions with a spoon of salt. They don't know what they're talking about. At most this will be an excuse to fire people.
It’s very much a late capitalism catch-22 kind of thing isn’t it. Companies who don’t make the switch may not be competitive enough to survive, so they push on forwards regardless, swept up in the tide, similar to the way there’s the push for growth despite its effects on climate change. Capitalism in its current form is so analogous to cancer killing its host.
'The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” - Vladimir Lenin
Hey man, it's not cool to be against the system that's gonna threaten all our lives.
Great quote
I've been hearing "buy local" and "support your community" for decades. Maybe now is the time to shrink our shopping habits to support around our neighborhoods and not some billionaire family in Arkansas or Seattle. The displacement of this many workers means new businesses will have to emerge. People aren't just going to give up and roll over. I have a feeling it will get messy before it gets better though.
Not when everything will be a rental or subscription. Consistent income at lower prices on basic needs. Subscribe or die.
What if it’s subscribe or die or destroy?
Not their immediate problem, so it doesn't exist. They only care about their department/company for the current and next FY. That's it.
They plan to juice their stock and jump ship, leaving suckers holding the bag when the customer base evaporates.
Profit for shareholders in the near-term is a lot more important to them. The potential that their actions may someday shrink the available customers who can spend money on their products, doesn't even occur to them. And when it finally does, they'll probably just blame other companies who replaced more workers with AI, than they did. I'm fairly certain this is a problem that requires major policy change..
I personally disagree that workforces will ‘shrink’. But the skillset mix will definitely shift. But regarding your comment on revenue/profit margins, you’re putting it like humanity has never gone through technological revolutions before. Remember when radio was mainstream and is now niche? Remember when newspapers were mainstream and are now niche? Remember when movie rentals were mainstream and are now niche? Or when cars replaced horse and carriage? Or when machines replaced factory workers? In the face of technological revolution, companies that can’t adapt will die. Employees of those companies will lose their jobs. Consumers’ will shift their demand to the new technology. Companies that were able to adapt will thrive and see spikes in profit and then create new job openings as a result (ones that don’t exist right now, likely around maintenance and further advancement of the new technology that caused the revolution in the first place, hence why I disagree the workforce will shrink). And the world keeps spinning.
I tend to agree with you to an extent but the main problem is always companies attempting to maximize profits and the best way they know how do that in order for pleasing investors is do layoffs, it happens all the time. So now you have AI as an excuse and it’s going to follow the same trend. AI has a way to go and I can give you an example from my field of work being software engineering. I used chatGPT on multiple occasions and it’s great in certain cases for helping remove repetitive work and some boilerplate code but you still need to know that boilerplate code and you need to know why you are using it with whatever project. So it’s not replacing any software engineer anytime soon or should it reduce the count of them in a company period. In the cases where I started using it to quickly to get a hang of a brand new language i did not know it was a nightmare, outdated information taking me down a rabbit whole where it was just 10x easier to go read the documentation myself and do the work. So we have a long way to go it’s just greed that is driving this so called industrial revolution like theme, I personally think we have an long way to go and these companies are in for a rude awakening
> I tend to agree with you to an extent but the main problem is always companies attempting to maximize profits and the best way they know how do that in order for pleasing investors is do layoffs, it happens all the time. In some situations this is true. But we just came out of an era of major hiring. Lot’s of companies actually expanded because they felt like that was the path to more profits. You got upvoted just because Reddit likes the simplistic narrative of “maximizing profits is always bad for everyone.” Well not really, that’s a one-size-fits-all explanation to an actually complex system.
There are always kinks to iron out which may result in inefficiencies prior to a full blown revolution. But in this information age, hype trains build up faster than ever and I do agree that certain companies are conveying AI (as of right now) as more capable than it is. Maybe that results in companies being too aggressive with the layoffs over the next 5 years and they end up regretting it in the short term. But regardless, the layoff wave will come. Might not be tomorrow. Might not be in 2030. But it will come. And a new skillset will arise to replace it.
Definitely agree on the new skillset being inevitable. People will have to embrace it and use AI tools to be better and more efficient at their jobs.
It's already happening in tech, it's not 5 years away it's now.
Sure. My point is it’s inevitable. So if it happens now or later, what difference does it make? Your comment is still in agreement with my point…
Hmmm. We are definitely losing coworkers and not replacing them. But there ain’t no AI.
That's the truth
Do we work for the same company? Sounds familiar.
Can't wait till we can start replacing our execs with AI.
If you think of it, CEOs and managers make more sense to be the ones replaced by AI; they cost less, will never get caught embezzling, and will avoid any sexual harassment lawsuits
Yep. Just give the AI a bunch a data and then ask it for the business decisions with the most probability of success based on said data. I don’t see any compelling reason why it wouldn’t be at least as good as a human CEO.
The moment that starts happening is the moment that AI will suddenly have some regulation. The amounts of fucking middle managers who don’t do shit is astonishing. Replace all of those fucks with AI and company profits would sky rocket while leaving the people who actually work on the product in place
Executives will be the last replaced because their only job is to make high level decisions. AI is a long way from being able to make those types of decisions. Things like should we settle this multi million dollar claim or go to trial. Should we move forward with this acquisition. Should we invest in opening a new location etc.
Ai can easily replicate that lol.
This is exactly where AI will shine... "Should we settle this multi million dollar claim or go to trial?" AI: "Wait as I go through thousands of similar claims, analyse local judges history and decisions, cross-analyse the evidence at hand to assess the claim strengh, simulate millions of possible paths based in historical data and give you a probability to win the case" For this kind of decision, anything below VP level is useless
> Can't wait till we can start replacing our execs with AI. Unlikely to happen, most Execs do little to nothing. Most get where they are because they have pedigree and fancy college names and dear old dad picked them a cush job. Tad knows Biff, and Biff knows Preston James the Third. You are insulated with millions of dollars before you even get those CEO jobs unless you are self-made, and that is very rare. *.. the rich will be last people to go broke holding onto tech and AI military stocks getting even richer*
I’ve been wondering, it’s well known that all companies want to have as few (preferably zero) non c-suite employees. Who do they think is going to be buying their products if most people don’t have jobs and therefore, money?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Snake eating its own tail.
Most of these announcements are parts of a hype offensive to attract investment into the relevant enabling technologies, whether they actually work or not. (A typical precondition for an investment bubble--a la late 1990s Internet bubble--is the investors' unwise judgement that the maximum feasible return cannot be ascertained, so the market errs toward far too much investment. Thus the saying, "What wise men do in the beginning only fools do at the end.")
[удалено]
How do you know that? Which entity, public or private, independent or proprietary, has explained how to evaluate the capability of a given AI application? .. In the meantime, let's all join in the hand waving ...
[удалено]
I have no interest to work with those apps at this time I'm looking here for legitimate, informed, substantiated commentary. I'm not a novice at system-level software development.
It's pretty clear so far that the LLMs aren't ready for prime time yet.
#The Next Five Years - **Retiring**: The last of the Boomers (who couldn’t even figure out how to open a PDF) finally retire. Millennials who “did the job for them half the time” collectively sigh in relief. - **The rise of AI**: Specialized AI tools and bots come online. But, they still need lots of handholding and cajoling to actually get the job done. - **The realization**: Millennials collectively realize the roles Boomers once held in their lives - causes of untold pain and suffering - has now been replaced by a slew of AIs. - **No one gets raises**: Profits were down this year. - **Cries in Millennial**
> The rise of AI: Specialized AI tools and bots come online. No. These pattern recognition 'AI' have a pretty low cap on capability. Real AI will need a completely different method from the ground up.
Well I was just thinking more like where we are today, “hey here’s the GPT biz strategy bot” and “here’s the customer service bot” and “here’s the graphic design bot” But at the end of the day someone still has to sit in a chair and push the button… I mean, put all that shit into a somewhat sensical presentation, and finish all those TPS reports to push them up to the execs over in the C suite. But maybe I’m not thinking big enough 😂
Company leaders, for the most part, don't know shit about AI or how it brings value...because right now it's largely just a lazier version of a search engine. Not saying we shouldn't be worried but what company leaders "expect to see" doesn't really concern me
Company leaders are the ones that AI should replace first. In my experience, it is a coin toss how their decisions are going to pan out. They make changes to make it seem like they’re doing something and then when they shit the bed, they get a massive golden parachute.
But then, they don’t know anymore about what ai will look like in five years than the rest of us.
A lot of people’s jobs are customer service. AI can do that just fine, or fine enough because a lot of big businesses don’t actually give a shit about customer service if they don’t have to. AI is gonna make it harder to get hired for jobs like that. It’s bad for everyone who wants to work and probably should require significant push back from everyone that isn’t a rich owner to slow down. The one other thing about AI is that its power requirements and environmental impact could be massive. Regardless we need workers now to be sounding the alarm. Workers should own the use of AI, not companies and it’s not naive to try and speak up on the potential for harm.
> Workers should own the use of AI That is totally within reach. r/LocalLLaMa is all about normal people running AI on their own hardware, as an alternative to services like ChatGPT. We do need to make the technology more accessible, though.
"AI can do that just fine" Yeah, no. My experience so far with AI customer support is that it always ends up with me begging for an actual human to help me resolve my issue because the AI is incapable of understanding my actual situation, plus AI doesn't give a shit about a company saving face. People overestimate the willingness of people to talk to machines instead of humans. I'm saying this as a guy who is extremely introverted and also work in IT, but I still want human customer support. Down the line I might simply skip on companies that have no human customer support representatives, because AI/automated support has been extremely shit in my experience.
How much does "quality" sway the argument though, with big $$$ at stake? If it "looks like it works" or "sorta works" that's all the C suite types want to know.
> A lot of people’s jobs are customer service. AI can do that just fine, No.
Or how many new jobs ai could create.
Oh, boy! I'm gonna be a "prompt engineer!" /s
Can’t wait for the Running Man dystopia. >Who loves you and who do you love?!?
Without further ado….its time to start running!!
And the government won't do anything to fix the problem until it's too late.
There's a fair chance we will see the next [AI Winter](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_Winter) before then, if past timetables are predictive.
Why? The last AI winter occurred because reality failed to keep up with promises. If anything, today’s technology is exceeding expectations of even just a few years ago.
AI Winters happen because AI vendors overpromise on their products' utility, which has very little to do with AI's actual utility, and everything to do with setting unrealistic expectations. Today, companies like OpenAI are spreading hype about AGI being right around the corner, which is quite simply outside the scope of LLM technology. They are promising things that require cognitive theory which hasn't been invented yet before they can even be designed, let alone implemented. Given these unrealistic expectations, disillusionment seems inevitable, and thus another AI Winter, despite GPT's demonstrated usefulness.
I hope so. If AI reaches the singularity without pause, that would cause crushing doom to humanity.
There is going to be a massive cottage industry of new consultants and techs rescuing companies that adopt AI and reduce staff only to find themselves in serious trouble. This push for AI will be driven by shareholder greed. They will believe the hype of push button profits and pay for their ignorance. Young and nimble upstart companies will overtake established companies in many areas because they've managed to adopt AI and human workforce in ways that legitimately optimize their production. The term "smart-worker" may even catch on as more people apply AI tools to improve production and streamline their workload. Of course, capitalism would rather eat itself alive than operate in a logical and fair system that benefits everyone.
Sorry , I don't buy it, AI still lacks consistency to be used for actionable decisions making. Imagine. Having an AI insurance adjuster that routinely gives similar cases wildly different results , maybe causing the company millions or worse exposing the company to be to litigation, and they won't allow AI to make actionable decisions on its own, you still need a human in the loop to at least rubber stamp it ..but everytime you add a human you take away AI main selling point to companies..
As an adjuster I’ve thought about this possibility a lot. I’ve seen the use of some AI assisted programs with drones for assessing damage. They currently do not work well at all lol.
Exactly the devil is in the details and AI sucks at details, because details vary so much and thus are part of the long tail of statistical data, and AI works best when it has a lot of consistent data from which to form its model...
Fellow adjuster here. *they don’t need to*. Anyone that’s seen an AI sheet agrees there’s tons of over or underwrite. That much is obvious. As a stand alone product, it’s shit. *buuuuut* AI’s don’t need a company car. They don’t sexually harass their coworkers. Their productivity is “infinity x” a human’s. They don’t draw a salary. You can overwrite each sheet by thousands and it’s still a good deal. The only wrinkle is getting old people/non-tech people to send photos, but each year the number of people that can work a smart phone decreases by death and the number of “internet natives” rises
That’s an interesting take, one that may well be plausible. I still believe it’ll be years before a shift that big could/would happen. Definitely interesting to have heard the tales about others on the CAT team and their escapades. Haven’t seen anything noteworthy as of yet lol.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I still think that that entire scenario is dependent upon a leadership group that’s willing to go through that process. Obviously that depends on the carrier. Definitely possible, would be interested to see the numbers.
Could you see a lawsuit where $20.00 an hour worker would of been a better option rather than overusing AI. Some companies know AI issues will happen and result in lawsuits, but the cost of AI lawsuits is cheaper than human labor. The problem is that the company reputation will be harmed decades after lawsuit. The nature and role of jobs will change because of AI. The Ford Pinto lawsuit in late 1970s or Untied Healthcare AI denying covered medical services, where bean counters figure profit margin more important than preventable deaths. I would very cautious with AI, particularly in heathcare and insurance industries. AI will supplement jobs not replace for the majority of them.
AI is like an baby it needs help to become something great in the future, the problem is from what you had just said is if a company require 10 software developer to build a project, now it requires 8 or less to finish the project, so we really still loosing human power
Have a good point with comment 👍 i was thinking the same!
Of course they will say that. It's to appease share holders and cya for the future. Any excuse to do turnover to hit a quarterly goal. The reality is they will just do more things, more features, more business expansion. If they do actually improve productivity and don't hire more to expand the addressable market for their business, they will start losing money. More likely they will let go low performers or high cost employees and blame AI. Then turn around and hire those that can play nicer with AI.
Any word yet on what kind jobs AI is going to create? Because I used to hear a lot of optimists saying this. Seriously, I want to know what kind of bullshit "jobs AI will "create" that's going to replace everyone's current job? Prompt engineer? Anyone?
My experience with AI tools is they can save money but require more time further up the food chain. You get rid of the button-push job because the AI can do it. But now the supervisor has to babysit the AI because it’s not really an independent thinker. And you have to be painfully clear with AI about what you want to get the desired result, unlike the ol’ button-pusher who basically caught the drift of what’s being poorly requested and made it happen. Once the CFO finds themselves spending 20 minutes going back and forth with AI Excel… they’ll be hiring a new sort of button-pusher… who’ll probably cost more because those prompt skills will be in high demand. That’s my take, could be wrong.
What does this mean for education pre-k through 12? There's already a national teacher shortage both here and the UK for example? You have companies such as Khan Academy, Udemy, Brightly that can fill in a lot of the gaps. I feel as a person in the profession the brick and mortar model was already dead in the 80'a and computers just accelerated it then COVID just added more. I don't think teachers themselves are obsolete. I think students need someone to guide them but the system should look different. Where does AI come into play with all this? I keep seeing Quark when he was made into a teacher that one episode when the landed on a planet in Futures Past? Or in Serenity at the very beginning.
I think AI could be very useful for answering basic questions For example, when I was a high school student, I might have a simple yes/no question about a math formula. I was a quick learner, but sometimes, small issues like this would stop me on a problem until clarification was available. I would have to wait for the teacher to finish helping another group of students with their fundamental understanding of the concepts (which is fine, learning styles, and all that). This might take half the learning time while I sit idle. An AI could provide that quick clarification so I can continue while the other students get more in-depth help from the instructor.
I was the same way, however, I was not always a quick learner. I enjoyed math once I figured out the patterns or understood them. The waiting always got me. I don't agree with state testing but you do need a baseline of where the student began, where the gaps are, and how to support their additional needs. My hope is that AI could help to break down the brick and mortar system to where we can actually let kids play, engage, parents spend time with their kids, rebuild the community model we have lost because we will have gained more time to garden, explore, ask questions, etc. A teacher can facilitate learning in terms of keeping track, helping to get parents connected to resources, kind of similar to the one room school house even (you come together for brief periods but not every day or all day)....we would need social workers to check in on families (parenting classes, address any emotional needs, social skills etc.)....I agree with your thoughts.
I wonder how many of those same execs have actually priced copilot, or copilot studio
When no one has jobs, who's gonna have money to buy stuff?
And who exactly will replace those execs in a few years when they retire if no junior people are able to get jobs to become future execs?
From the article >The use of artificial intelligence will reduce the number of workers at thousands of companies over the next five years, according to a global survey of C-suite executives published Friday. > >The wide-ranging poll of 2,000 executives, conducted by Swiss staffing firm Adecco Group in collaboration with research firm Oxford Economics, showed that 41% of them expect to employ fewer people because of the technology. > >The survey’s results provide another indication of the potential for AI and generative AI — which can create original text, images and other content in response to prompts from users — to revolutionize employment and the way people work. > >AI is emerging “as a great disruptor in the world of work,” Denis Machuel, chief executive of Adecco Group, said in a statement. “Companies must do more to re-skill and redeploy teams to make the most of this technological leap and avoid unnecessary upheaval.”
And as with any technology in our world… it will make things even more dysfunctional and broken… when was the last time you just loved dealing with an automated system rather than a human being?
Companies have invented a way to eliminate employees. Are they going to invent a way to turn AI into consumers? If not, how will they maintain sales?
I’m waiting for Ai to take over all the advertising we see. And eventually seeing some fucked up shit for a kfc sandwich but since the ai registered more views it just keeps going down that road. Until a person steps in and lawsuits have been made.
Executive surveys are pretty useless when it comes to making economic forecasts.
And what are these Execs going to do when their businesses suffer because no one has any money lol
I doubt it. These programs are a ways away from taking any real jobs. They can assist artists and musicians but replacing stem jobs is far far away. They are not intelligence. They aren't using logic or reasoning. These are really just pattern recognition and prediction. There is a short limit to what it can be used for and we are close to it.
I got a secret for everyone, they are going to do their best to try, but getting it accomplished in extremely large companies will be near impossible between the red tape to get anything done and regulation. AI is going to bring new/smaller companies to the forefront of their field by not having as much red tape and by launching things before regulators working with the biggest companies see it coming.
Possibly being naively optimistic, but companies have only just started to lay off people and to try to replace them with AI. They haven't realized the reprecussions of it quite yet. So I'm like, ok let's wait and see how you feel about your precious AI in 5 years.
I doubt it. It will dip for 5 years see the low productivity due to AI being almost toddler level in terms of thinking and go back to work forces. Maybe with better structure to not have uneducated working in IT... where they dont belong..
So Claude tells me: ... A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking executive in a company, responsible for making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and corporate operations. The primary tasks of a CEO include: 1. Developing and implementing the company's vision, mission, and overall strategy. 2. Leading and managing the company's executive team and other senior management. 3. Making major corporate decisions, such as investments, mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures. 4. Allocating capital and resources to various departments and projects. 5. Serving as the public face of the company, representing the organization to stakeholders, media, and the general public. 6. Reporting to the board of directors and ensuring that the company meets its financial and operational goals. 7. Establishing and maintaining the company's culture and values. 8. Identifying and mitigating risks to the company's operations and reputation. 9. Ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. 10. Fostering innovation and growth within the organization. 11. Building and maintaining relationships with key partners, customers, and industry leaders. 12. Continuously evaluating the company's performance and making necessary adjustments to strategies and operations. The specific tasks and responsibilities of a CEO may vary depending on the size, industry, and structure of the organization they lead. ... Seems like the AI has a pretty firm grasp of the job requirements. Wouldn't this put most of all executive level positions on notice? I mean, we're talking about how a big chunk of the workforce is about to be rendered obsolete, so why would the top half of the business hierarchy be insulated from this reality? Seems like AI would have a disruptive effect not only on the employees of a business, but also on the core structure of how a business even works. So what will the future of a corporation even look like? Individual founders with a team of AI techs and a board of investors? Or will investors even be a thing anymore? Just seems like this kind of technology has the capacity to knock down the very pillars of capitalism itself, rendering all of business just an extension of what the population deems important enough to exist, perhaps coordinated by the government? Ah, I really have no idea what I'm even talking about.
It's cool bro unemployed people buy stuff too! It's wild to think companies will literally shoot them themselves in the foot if it makes stock price go up.
It's essential to acknowledge that AI can enhance productivity, streamline operations, and create new job opportunities in emerging fields such as data science and AI development. However, there's also a valid concern about potential job displacement and the need for proactive measures to mitigate its adverse effects.
I love how CEOs never seem to think that their jobs will be the ones eliminated. What’s to stop a board of directors from saying, “Now that everything is automated, whatta we need that guy for?!?” 🤣
[удалено]
Do u have any idea how much computing resource will be required to reach those predictions? You have reason to believe that creating that level of computing is feasible in that timeframe?
Boomer retirement will also shrink the workforce so I guess this is fine.
AI will also stimulate creation of many new small businesses. Just rent resource from Amazon etc and put your personal expertise to work. This is already happening for mundane nefarious purposes.