|
Phone posting, so I'll just say that anyone reading this thread should check out Four Futures And also any other book recommendations, share em here or have your robots share
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:
I chose poorly when as a young man, I said, I want to design hardware, because it's the "realest" job around. gently caress it, I'm getting an MBA and making slide decks
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
If you have a company with 100k employees, and you can automate away 2 hours a week of a common task, that's 5k jobs you can replace. You didn't need to actually create an AI that could do the job of those 5k people. The larger the company the easier its going to be because you have more overlap between employees.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
In large corporations, there's a nice ripple effect too, because they're so layered. If you can shed, let's say 500 employees, that's also probably about 25 highly paid people in management that can go. Less employees, less oversight needed. You don't get rid of a whole department, you just consolidate two of them when they shrink enough, so that they only need one manager now, and then put the two managers together in a room with one knife. Less employees also allows you to thin out HR and IT. Lose enough HR and you can lose some HR management. And so on. In a large enough facility, you might be able to get rid of some security, nurses, cafeteria workers, janitors, people who maintain facilities, and any extra, now unnecessary management that goes along with all of them. And that's how a nurse and a plumber lose their job to automation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
EDIT: Don't know what the gently caress just happened there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
I could the revolution in cake making playing out in a few possible ways: 1) CakeMaker2.0 sells cakes at such low prices, hardly anyone can compete. A few continue to get by because they make bespoke custom cakes that aren't worth CakeMaker2.0's time, so they stay in business. Their other cakes are a little more than CakeMaker's, but since people are in the store, they still buy a few. Unless CakeMaker2.0 hires a massive marketing team to promote cakes as a new superfood, the demand for cakes is the same though. Cakemaker2.0, takes business from other less efficient bakeries but overall cake consumption is static. For every employee CakeMaker2.0 adds, smaller bakeries lose 2 or 3 though. The Cake-conomy shrinks. 2) CakeMaker2.0 decides they don't want to be customer facing, so they sell their cakes directly to bakeries. It's really hard for bakeries to justify making their own cakes now, so they buy 90% of their cakes for CakeMaker2.0, except when they make their own very unique and custom cute cakes. This is like custom cakes with giant dicks on them. Very nice you should see. Or maybe niche ethnic bakeries stick around because CakeMaker just can't make the bread like a momma used to make. Since the bakeries are buying so many of their components, *cough cough*, sorry I mean cakes, from subcontractors though, they don't need as much staff in these new streamlined operations, so they layoff a bunch of bakers. The Cake-conomy shrinks again. 3) CakeMaker2.0 decides, you know, gently caress making a giant company that sells cakes. I actually hate cakes and I don't want to deal with making a giant business. I'm going to sell my cake making method, and anyone willing to pay me $1 per cake can use my IP. Since it saves $5 in labor for $1 in IP, bakeries jump at that poo poo. And since the demand for cakes is pretty much the same, but now take half the time, a bunch of employees find themselves sweeping floors instead of making cakes, and soon enough they are laid off. Sad. Main Paineframe posted:That's not always the case. Companies don't expand their business just because they can, they expand their business because there's unmet demand they can fill. For example, replacing old-fashioned cash registers with POS systems didn't decimate overall cashier employment because the retail market was rapidly expanding during that period. Positions per store may have been down, but companies like Walmart and Kmart were opening stores all over as they quickly grew from small newcomers to industry heavyweights. Likewise, although ATMs reduced the number of employees per bank branch, banks were building a lot of physical bank branches at the time, so overall bank employment continued to rise and the labor savings simply fueled faster expansion. Right - demand for some things is static. Like for example if you provide specialized services, like an accounting firm. Hey guys, we can do your books twice as fast! Want us to do them twice?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Someone was talking about a dark future where an AI could make something take 2 hours less a week resulting in mass layoffs. But literally all of history is the invention of tools that cut 2 hours a week off tasks. It evidently can't simply be a force for unemployment if it's always happened through all of history. I'm not talking about a dark future my man. I happen to be a big fan of automation and AI. I just want it to work for humanity as a whole, and I think we all need to be honest with ourselves if that's going to happen. I don't think good things are going to happen if we shrug and assume it will all work out like it always has. I also think that that underplays how much suffering had to occur for our present conditions. We didn't just smoothly progress to where we are today. I understand that human history is in a lot of ways the history of advancing tools. We are smart monkeys that make good tools, that's kind of our thing. My point is that AI is not going to take away the jobs with fancy degrees. It's going to flank those jobs, it's going to chip away a little bit at a time. People who think their job is safe because it's not directly replaceable by AI are fooling themselves. Human history has not seen tools that can be developed by anyone anywhere in the world, and be dispersed almost immediately anywhere else in the world. Human history has not seen tools that can make human decisions. poo poo, better decisions than humans. What happens to smart monkeys that make good tools when they make tools that are smarter than them? Or make tools that make better tools than them?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Ew, now I'm imagining some sort of app that scans people's reaction to your appearance and gives you a ranking at the end of the day so that you know what to wear...those shoes cost you 2 attraction points Rachel.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 02:54
|
|