[This is a guest post by Rikab Gambhir. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] First, they came for the artists, and I did not speak out…
Re position that you can’t be payed for it now, it’s not defendable … I think AI is cutting through all BS and we are just realizing that a huge mass of workforce was probably mostly doing useless things.
So … we can’t use the argument of continual employment against LLMs, but most jobs were useless to begin with? What do you expect to happen to all the people who will be no longer employed?
I expect people (myself included) find whatever job they can do competently for which there is demand.
IT was already largely inflated before AI. It already felt that easily most of the people in IT were unnecessary overhead.
I have personally held jobs that existed due to artificial demand. Such as middle management securing jobs under their position in order to justify their own job. Or companies hiring as many people as they can in order to show growth to their investors. Or poorly engineered projects that require a small army of engineers to firefight daily problems, when the whole thing could be done orders of magnitude simpler and smaller.
This might sound a bit controversial, but it isn’t exactly unknown. Books like The Mythical Man Month or the Dilbert Principle, describe this rather accurately.
I’ve seen projects that had one design team and one development team per widget on a UI. Per widget, take a minute to fully appreciate the absurdity. At some point we need to question jobb efficiency.
I am not an AI maximalist. I use AI coding agents in a very conservative way.
But the one thing that I find positive with the advent of these AI tools is that everyone is finally questioning if we really need so many people.
So … we can’t use the argument of continual employment against LLMs, but most jobs were useless to begin with? What do you expect to happen to all the people who will be no longer employed?
score 2 · canonical
I expect people (myself included) find whatever job they can do competently for which there is demand.
IT was already largely inflated before AI. It already felt that easily most of the people in IT were unnecessary overhead. I have personally held jobs that existed due to artificial demand. Such as middle management securing jobs under their position in order to justify their own job. Or companies hiring as many people as they can in order to show growth to their investors. Or poorly engineered projects that require a small army of engineers to firefight daily problems, when the whole thing could be done orders of magnitude simpler and smaller.
This might sound a bit controversial, but it isn’t exactly unknown. Books like The Mythical Man Month or the Dilbert Principle, describe this rather accurately.
I’ve seen projects that had one design team and one development team per widget on a UI. Per widget, take a minute to fully appreciate the absurdity. At some point we need to question jobb efficiency.
I am not an AI maximalist. I use AI coding agents in a very conservative way. But the one thing that I find positive with the advent of these AI tools is that everyone is finally questioning if we really need so many people.
score 1 · canonical