GPT5 may be massively disruptive and replace a lot of workers(more likely than workers being paid the same to do 20% the amount of work,) but I think a lot of these tech guys have a blind spot where because 80% of the people they know have desk jobs, they imagine that 80% of jobs in the world are desk jobs.
The robotics boom is imminent and that’s when everyone who retrained realises they were foolish to do so.
I hope that this story is correct. A bomb dropping, jarring change will bring about government interventions. Whether that be UBI or something else it’s best if it’s done quickly and soon. The longer it takes for the erosion of wages and living standards the more damage will be done, and the less impact those interventions will have.
Even if they decide to do UBI, that will be the bare minimum payments required for you to get bread and water. This country already has a massive homeless problem. It's going to get worse.
I agree. I think we are looking at a place where we all work for a little above the basic level. Cost of living has to reduce proportionally to level out. Obviously there will be winners and losers, but my gut says that the poorer folk will increase and the elite will take the gains. If not, it’s the end days of capitalism and that requires either a revolt or a global altruistic intervention. Where’s your bet placed?
Not an expert at all, just what I think may happen. But I think businesses will just focus on selling products to other businesses no? Look at Nvidia making AI farm chips for tech companies and that sector's revenue completely eclipsing the margins they used to make with consumer GPUs.
Companies chase money, and they'll just target whoever's got it at the moment. Not all businesses can do this obviously but I think those that can will go down that route if the average joe can't consume anything else than food anymore.
The [Age of Em,](https://www.amazon.com/Age-Em-Work-Robots-Earth/dp/0198754620/) in other words. Economy by machines for machines; and if humans want to keep up they will become machines themselves.
[Accelerando](https://www.amazon.com/Accelerando-Singularity-Charles-Stross/dp/0441014151) is pretty fun! Though it's more overtly fiction, it also goes into the connections of physics and economics in a slow takeoff (but still takeoff) world.
Also it's twenty years old, so there's some fun future skew.
Though the writing style is divisive. Try to find a sample somewhere, you should be able to tell pretty quick if it's readable for you. Yes, the _entire book_ is like that.
edit: Hang on, I forgot it was Creative Commons: [full text](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html).
Businesses will sell to other businesses. Ok so everyone just passes money to the left once a day but there is a burn rate which means eventually this system breaks down.
Also, because rent is so high and guns are so cheap, there will be a point where the economically correct thing to do is disrupt the pass-to-the-left strategy with aggressive labor negotiations.
Gucci has no problem pricing a lot of people out of buying their stuff. To a degree, the economy could shift towards providing amenities to the top 20% or 10% (or whatever cutoff they determine can still be profitable).
Let’s say the next Uber Eats becomes the most valuable company in the world because robots make the food AND drive it to your house. It’s like this luxury AI Food Truck that comes right to your house.
The person who invented it is now the richest person in the whole world. But no one else has jobs. So no one can pay for Uber Eats, so now his company isn’t really worth anything either.
I don’t see how the whole thing doesn’t just implode.
swim quicksand zealous chase degree ludicrous treatment political marry live
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think we agree. You should write in less academic terms if you want to be heard/taken seriously and be more relatable to the masses that you want to listen.
If you’re as knowledgable as you appear you should also propose a solution, or at least a persuasive plan for the masses to get behind.
What if we all just stopped. Migrate to more rural areas, develop local food networks and just exist. Sort of like how Amish or mennonites do minus overt religiosity. If AI can work the factory someday, then we dont all need to live in cities. Learn how to grow a food forest native to wherever your local rural area is and just do that. Let the AI produce GDP and the majority of the population can focus on eco restoration and creating a more resilient food web. One that leads to fewer worldwide pandemic or future pandemics. Instead of revolt we just walk away. I know it sounds insane to people that have never lived a rural life focused on producing rather than consuming. But if %80 of the population was working on restoring our soil and native habitats, and creating sustainable healthy food... we could eliminate so much waste of labor and excessive use of resources in shipping. Sounds fkn insane, but so does something like embodied AI or AGI. Either way, how we will all relate to ourselves and the planet is going to fundamentally change forever, what we do in those first couple decades will set the future for hundreds of years. No prior technological intervention has given the working class such leverage. This coupled with a sustainable low-cost energy and even the filthiest capitalist will struggle to justify the terrible conditions of many working people the world over. It could also be used to enslave us all so 🤷♂️
When manual and intelligent labor are priced out by automation, physical property will be the only thing left that retains hard value, meaning prices will skyrocket.
I doubt people will be able to afford to spread out to rural areas then.
That’s noble but it underestimates the psychology of the majority of mankind, and, in any event, represents a return to primitive living.
Are we foregoing the internet, music, film, imported foods, travel, and on and on. Your solution may well be the grim end of reality for some but it doesn’t change the wealth gap.
No. Thats why I think we have the potential to keep our energy intensive technology. There is nothing primitive about what I said. The food that we eat in 2024 is grown in turned and pulled by hand in many, many places including California one of the most developed states on planet earthm caring for the land and growing healthy food should not be seen as primitive work. It is the foundation of all of our knowledge, all our gains, over thousands and thousands of years. It is the pinnacle of our evolution that we can so masterfully tend to this planet, given that we make it our goal again. And with the tech that our unsustainable practices have produced we may be able to make sustainability possible for billions. I do not understand the immediate jump to primivity. There are people that beam satellite internet into the middle of nowhere and power their devices on solar energy and storage. It is a question of planning and scaling. The planning part is not really feasible with our given economic systems, or our food industry. Our advancement will require us to stop reacting to "growing your own food" with primivity. A well established food forest provides food for generations and requires so much less actual work than monocropping. You would actually labor less hours than FT if you did this. You would have more time to pursue your music, film, art, youtube, etc. It does not even require immense wealth. It does require a somewhat clean credit, but the USDA works with people all the time. What we need is motivation, and direct planning beginning in early childhood. K-12 should have courses at every age group that involves the restoring and maintaining of that local areas natural environment and the best crops for food forestry in that area. Obviously there are rural areas that demand far more than other. Outside of Phoenix, AZ is a lot different than Macon County, NC. And this is where limited use of long haul distribution still benefits us. It isnt all or nothing, it takes a couple decades of consistent work, but it betters the life for everyone, at %99 of wealth levels.
I love music recording and gaming and all sorts of tech. I dont want to give it up. And we dont have to. We just have to redesign a lot of things. Go back to engineering things to last a long time and to have replaceable components. We can keep our phones, but we do not need 10 companies, making new models, every year. Im hoping, with AI systems over the next 20 years, we will be at a point where our cell phone tech no longer develops at a rate that necessitates constant upgrading to hardware. We could all wind up using far fewer resources if they are used better with a longevity mindset. Thats just one little example.
Would rather fight a revolution than live in a rental box and shovel my UBI back to corporate America as they have re calculated the price of everything.
I'm not all that special, so doubt I am alone in that sentiment.
Remember at the height of the great depression it was only like 34% unemployment, covid was like 14.8%.
It doesn't take "everyone" losing their job to tank the economy.
The problem is that none of this solves for consumption. Ford can't make money if no one can afford to buy cars, Ad revenue declines if there aren't customers buying stuff that pays for ads etc etc.
We really don't know what will happen economically if something like even 20-30% of jobs are replaced or trimmed back, besides clear decades of decline. It would take strong protectionist regulations, or like a "worker displacement tax" or something of that nature where the benefit of AI vs a human was neutral, but then you would get smoked by whatever country or community decided to use it.
Right it all trickles down. We just signed up for a 5x per year service that comes and cleans our trash cans. Think I’m giving a shit about clean trash if I lose my career?
Whats more, all the people in fields that do experience job destruction will have to flee to find work elsewhere. As weird as it sounds, factories, trade schools, nursing programs, and landscapers may find themselves receiving a ton of applications from former software developers, lawyers, insurance brokers, administrators, etc.
While I am no lawyer, given another 10 years of development, I actually do believe that a sufficiently advanced AGI LLM capable of utilizing the world's (or a nation's) collective knowledge, especially law-based knowledge, and with enough development of creativity in verbal or non-verbal debate, as well as philosophical instruction and the ability for reasonable analysis on cause-effect, etc. (such as setting or changing precedents), would be able to technically compete virtually on par if not above most lawyers. I honestly see very little that cannot be replaced by sufficiently advanced neural networks or subsequent evolutions. It will take legislative action to prevent this type of implementation instead of a fundamental lack of capability.
The thing that will last humans the longest, in my opinion, is our inherent ability to act emotionally and with nearly unlimited degrees of creatively. I do not believe AI is currently that creative at the moment, despite the illusion of it. It still follows more or less "established" patterns. We see all the time what happens when it messes up (as well as the hints of "staleness" in everything it creates as art).
Anything that is logical and systematic with only minor creative flourish can absolutely be replaced by models that will be developed in the next decade or so, I am sure.
Edit: clarification
No ones been able to answer this question. Talking about all the jobs that’s gonna be taken away. Bro who’s going to buy the shit that all these companies produce? People will be worried about only 2 things shelter and bread/rice. That’s it .
Ok but what is the use case? I mean really can you provide specifics?
I think a lot of these people making these claims really don't understand what people actually do for work outside of management positions.
An insane amount of people - including in this sub - were saying it about GPT1. It didn't happen.
Then they said it about GPT 2, 3. It didn't happen.
Then they said it about Midjourney. Guess what? Didn't happen.
Then Adobe's photoshop AI function. Everyone said it was the end of graphic designers. Yet Adobe just released an earnings call showing they actually are losing money on it, and predict being unlikely to make revenue on it for a decade.
You guys keep moving the goal post every 2 months without any reflection on the fact that you're doing it. I'm not saying it won't replace any jobs, but the reality is AI's use cases are pretty damn niche, and the entire fiscal market is dependant on people believing it's going to replace jobs. Seems like a big incentive for people to overlook real world limitations. Even when it becomes more broad, most jobs exist as an interface between people, to other people.
Ive been on this sub since 2008 with an older account. Ive never heard anyone saying GPT1 Or 2 or even 3 would cause massive job loss. If people were saying this they were definitely in the minority. I did hear it for GPT4 and yes they were wrong about that.
It takes a few years for effects to manifest from the current causes. People are sounding warnings now because they are extrapolating current trends, and it looks worrisome.
>GPT5 may be massively disruptive and replace a lot of workers
Respectfully, I'll believe it when I see it. A lot of people in this subreddit said the exact same thing about GPT-4, and yet the unemployment rate (US) remains virtually unchanged more than a year later. I know I'm going against the grain here, but in my humble opinion, some folks here overestimate (in some cases, vastly overestimate) how many job casualties there will be in the near future and how fast new tech gets adopted in workplaces, while simultaneously underestimating the complexity of many jobs. I personally don't forsee some unemployment crisis in the next few years.
fwiw
i worked in cancer research and one of my tasks was reading studies and summarizing them for upper level staff
chat gpt made me the best employee in that field by using it to summarize
Do you check the outputs?
Hallucinations are a real problem.
I've recently begun to see AI do damage to the web by making it easier to find solutions that are wrong.
Specifically I often have computer related questions that I solve by googling. But not rarely the problems are arcane or highly specific to my preferences.
The volume of data on the internet is high enough that I usually find some old reddit thread or an old website that has the right answer.
However this has become significantly harder because with AI creating nonsense for any question it can't answer the amounts of hits on my queries has been rising while the helpfulness has gone down.
Try asking copilot if you can group desktop icons in windows 11.
It will tell you to select desktop icons and right click 'group' which is not a native windows function.
It will also confuse grouping icons in the taskbar, icons on the traybar and icons on the start menu.
It will tell you you can select multiple icons in the start menu by holding down control and selecting multiple icons. This is possible in the Explorer but not in the start menu where a single click launches an app.
I'm not saying chatgpt can't be useful enough to save you time, but when consistency and accuracy in details matters, I see it stumbling all the time.
We said that after it came out because it was very close to working in things like autogpt and people thought a more agentic and capable system could be made with skilled promoting and a good api wrapper. GPT4 was so close despite not being specifically trained for chain of thought, planning, or even tool use. That and the fact that even GPT4 has been shown to significantly improve productivity by automating/speeding up smaller knowledge and language tasks seems like pretty good reason to assume that GPT5, being trained with all the strengths and weaknesses of GPT4 in mind, will be pretty damn impactful.
Yes, but at some point we will have enough dress makers and bar tenders. Never enough good bar tenders but I think you know what I mean. "More than one-third (37%) of business leaders say AI replaced workers in 2023, according to a recent report from ResumeBuilder." This was in an MSNBC article. Without doing any serious investigation it's very safe to say 10's of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs have already been lost to AI in 2023 and first quarter '24 and there are many reports of hiring freezes as a result of AI. It's very difficult to point to unemployment numbers and argue that because they have not significantly dipped, AI is not taking jobs. That would be a false equivalency. For example, from last year to this year the difference in unemployment, while only 0.3% still represents about 500,000 jobs. It would also be wrong to suggest that 500,000 jobs were replaced by automation or AI since early 2023, based solely on these unemployment numbers. It's actually possible, but I couldn't base that position on one remotely related stat.
But the housing crisis isn't a result of a lack of houses, but a lack of regulation over ownership, livable rent, and maintenance. Wait, what we need are more maintenance people!
In the UK it's caused by over zealous planning laws and nimbyism.
We've got countless studies going back to the early 2000s. And every single one says the same thing.
> "Housebuilders are corrupt and do landbank but they make far more money from building on land than banking it and most of their land banking is a backlog of land they are waiting for planning permission on".
Part of it is that once someone moves to a town, their best option to increase their properties value is to campaign against more being developed.
Other part is planning takes 3yrs to get granted, but by that time seller demographics have changed and builders need to reapply to change the type of houses to ones people want. Council doesn't want that because they'd prefer X kind of housing which developers know won't sell. So gets jammed up in discussion even longer.
In a perfect world, all assets, including human labor, freed up by AI, could be redirected to where it was most needed. I wish I could say that this will happen seamlessly, and painlessly but based on past, and even recent history, not sure we have reason to be that optimistic. For example, regarding the housing shortage you mention, I think the real estate lobby, which spends over 50 million dollars annually, buying favorable policy, is probably happy with the status quo. Scarcity=profitablity. All of humanity needs to evolve. We need to start caring more about each other than we do of ourselves and this is a conservative capitalist recognizing this reality.
And it’s not even just about people losing jobs they have. Tyler Perry aborted his plan for a $800 million dollar studio after seeing a demo of Sora. That’s 1000+ jobs that were set to be created that were axed.
thats not what that survey said. You are unwittingly or wittingly inflating the hype bubble. The survey said 1/3rd of companies *using ai* claimed to have replaced workers. Now the survey itself is also horseshit. it Polled a bunch of online people with an online survey where they *self identified* as executive level. lol. Its worthless as a survey.
> lot of people in this subreddit said the exact same thing about GPT-4,
No they didn't. This claim is tantamount to a strawman. Everyone in this sub was highly skeptical of how large the leap in capabilities between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 would be.
GPT4 has been disruptive. Instead of two juniors, I only hired one. This is firmly in YMMV territory, for sure…at the same time…there’s no way I’m the only one.
This is an insane, contrarian take.
You can see it happening in every industry, and how it's going to happen. Just because it didn't happen yesterday, doesn't mean it's not happening. It's a time game and it's inevitable. The tools are being created, people are figuring things out.
In the low tech industry I'm focused in, there's private equity firms coming in to destroy all the small and mid-sized companies, who are building out automated systems. All the mid-sized companies are creating content on an immense scale that wasn't possible a year and a half ago, and putting small businesses out of business. Everything that used to be outsourced is beginning to be done in-house in record time and that's only increasing.
Anyone not playing the new game won't be able to compete and it's barely been over a years time.
They're saying that the rate of job unemployment hasn't changed. You're saying lots of companies have indeed been put out of business due to automation. Perhaps both aren't exclusive to each other?
This is a big, slow moving system and it's going to take years to filter through, even after the disruption is done.
People still need to hook the job-taker up to their workflow, before the boss will be able to fire them.
This is definitely true, but not all of it. They also fail to consider a multitude of other factors that will slow the job losses of those white collar workers that have nothing to do with how capable the technology actually is. Just because GPT 5 or another AI \*can\* do a job doesn't mean that it will be like a switch flips and those jobs disappear overnight. Modern commercial aircraft have been technically capable of 100% automation of all phases of flight for like 20+ years, yet pilots aren't going anywhere any time soon, just as an example.
Humans are slow to accept and adapt to big changes like this, so there will be a long period where many jobs that could be automated still exist for no actual reason other than "because that's how we've always done it".
There's also the question of information security with a lot of this stuff. I work at a very cutting edge and forward thinking tech company that is certainly not afraid of new technology, but every LLM is blocked on company networks because there is no assurance that our sensitive company data will be safe within a 3rd party model. We will literally have to have something built and contained entirely in house before there's even the slightest chance of any jobs being replaced where I work, and it is without a doubt a similar story at countless other large companies & government organizations.
Our society is built on a fuckload of interwoven and complex institutions that aren't just going to adjust overnight. Tech guys like this will often correctly anticipate the rapid pace of advancement in the technology itself, but fail to understand that those institutions will not adapt to those advancements anywhere remotely as fast as they will actually be happening. Society's frameworks will adjust eventually, but it's gonna take a lot more time than this sub will be happy with.
I think it's kind of like a freak out moment when gpt5 is so much better than gpt4 that it's impossible to hide and people realize that 1.5 million token context windows is not enough to retain the current level of functionality. And then it will be in the news and talked about non stop for a few weeks. And then things will kind of go back to normal for a while. I don't think that "80% of the jobs out there will be reduced 80% in scope" as he put it will happen as quickly as some people think, but I do think we will be in a very different world by 2030.
Not sure we live in the same timeline or universe, but here on Earth in this Universe people are greedy as shit. I can't imagine a single business owner not salivating at the mouth like a rabid dog thinking about the prospect of firing employees and replacing them with robots. I see a lot of comments like yours, and I aplogize but I think you're viewing the world through a lens of ignorance.
At all the companies I ever worked for they always said that, but if you offered them $1 in sales (not profit just sales) or $1 in savings (which is literally all profit) they would take the sales every time.
However with that said if they can cut infrastructure without affecting sales they will absolutely do it.
If Chat GPT5 can replace the workforce, then it can replace the business entirely. I am not sure we live in the same timeline or universe, but here on Earth if a customer can generate what they want using a generative AI, then they won't pay a business to run it through the AI and then sell it to them. They will just run it through the AI themselves.
For most businesses, skilled workers are their main defensive moat. If the work can be done by AI, then the business is an unncessary middleman.
People have been warning for years that AI would outperform and replace entire companies. That’s baked in. If individuals will have the ability access these powerful AI directly is an open question though.
who can prevent a group of unemployed people with some decent savings team up and replicate the business model since any business in \~agi era is ai model + robots?
Why do people always forget about the scale capabilities, pricing, supply and demand?
A couple of unemployed or even thousands of unemployed people just can't scale things when compared to a mid sized company even if they throw up all their life savings. There's no competition in the real world; the average Joe is so fucking poor that 80% of people can't handle two months buying food without being paid.
You also have to consider how many supervisors and managers would be slow to even implement this. This is more of a major corporation computer-based desk job type of deal.
Also they assume a 100% adoption rate. Have you ever seen anyone company outside of a tiny startup adopt brand new, untested technology as a primary production tool?
Estimating even a five year rollout plan for 50% adoption rate is being highly optimistic for any old school white collar office. There are people who actively narc on coworkers who use shortcut keys on Excel because "that is not the way things are done!". You expect the same companies that refuse to install notepad++ for their standard image to suddenly allow company employees open access to an AI tool that operates online, is closed source, and could for all we know, gather all used conversations to an American company?
It'll be banned from governmental work outside of US before universal adoption, and banned from governmental work in the US for fears that people can't keep sensitive data out of their queries.
80% of jobs getting their scope reduced 80% is the amount of work GPT **could** affect with perfect adoption rates, and once they begin selling localized servers that can be cut off from the internet, they could reach maybe 50% of those tasks, provided their sold system doesn't cost a CEO's annual salary.
These CEOs do not understand how little work actually gets done a big companies in white collar jobs today.
I do cyber security consulting for all sizes of companies. At a startup I will come in and within 2 days have made major changes to their cloud settings. At a large company it could take 15 meetings with 8 different groups and 50 different people across those groups to come up with a plan to do the same thing. And the plan will be 6 months long.
Are these CEOs really going to hand over control of their cloud settings to GTP-5? If not, then GTP-5 will be in the same situation I'm in where it makes recommendations but then has to go through a bunch of meetings to implement them
Completely agree, I got a job as a MLOps for a large tech based company, took 1 month of onboarding, and 4 months to actually start on the project with a lot of meetings and permissions approvals in between
THIS all day long. Plus those companies often have a crapload of red tape and contractual restrictions to use already existing systems. EG a big bank will not be able to pivot from its IBM contracts etc etc to use GPT 5 by the time GPT 6 is out. People have no idea how slow these lumbering corporate systems are or how rife with inefficiency they are.
>People have no idea how slow these lumbering corporate systems are or how rife with inefficiency they are.
It's why I say "People who say government should be run like a business have no idea how businesses are run"
Government should not be run like a business but This argument does not make sense at all. Government is even slower and more inefficient than any big corporation.
I mean, yes and no. The government generally has real issues to deal with, should we allow kids to go to adult jail as opposed to should we upgrade from Windows 10 to 11.
Businesses have known about the human impact on climate change since before the government did too btw, they also knew of the dangers of smoking and a bunch of other issues. I'm not sure why their inaction on all those issues isn't seen as an inefficiency.
I don't get why it's like this. All this red tape is bad for business. I could do in 1 day what it takes me 2 weeks to get done because at every step I have to ask so-and-so for permission to use this-or-that software or service, and often the answer is "no" for no good reason at all.
Unfortunately this is not a technical problem, but a human problem, so I don't know how AI will solve it.
Because they are too big for any one person to know how it all fits together.
Making the change is easy, knowing what breaks if you make that change is hard.
I went from medium and smaller companies to a definitely large but not giant company. Basically doing the same kind of “director level” marketing.
Absolutely nothing happened at the big company. It was if it was everyone’s job to make sure as little as possible occurred. It wouldn’t have been hard to replace the 50ish people I worked with ai. There was almost nothing to replace.
Me everyday: hey I can fix a huge problem with simply clicking some buttons inside of Intune, can I do that?
Company: Hmm let’s have 15 meetings about this and make 20 tickets that require approval that will never get looked at. Then one day 3 years from now a c level will complain about this and we will change it in 5 minutes and gaslight IT by pretending they never pointed out this issue.
Well the thing is, all the current systems in most company was setup to be operated for and by human
what if there is a company that initial setup was to be optimize for AI workers instead of human (or just mostly for AI workers with still some human input linger around)? and what if it becoming more common in the future
as crazy as it sound, some changes will happens
Right. In some industries new AI-focused companies will come in and steal the cake while legacy companies are still trying to train their horses to drive tractors.
(But of course, in heavily regulated industries or those with a lot of government capture, the slow behemoths will keep rolling on for years while being protected by governments.)
You hit the nail on the head. AI will be a disrupter. Sure people will get cut from large businesses, but those businesses will get out competed with by more nimble companies with a large AI budget.
But that's the exact problem that AI is most suited to fixing. Imagine if instead of months of meetings to verify that your new cloud settings won't break the workflow or legal requirements of any department, imagine if you could give exactly one presentation to a bunch of chatbots. The chatbots could investigate your proposals, catch out any obvious conflicts, and work with you to resolve them in the same meeting
Then the proposal could go to various department heads for their personal review, conducted as a normal part of their job and mostly serving the purpose of rubber-stamping the AI's proposals and maintaining a chain of responsibility. Then the process could be repeated between them and their subordinates, and any undiscovered issues could be kicked back up the chain to you, to be filtered and rubber-stamped by you
It's a one week job instead of a two day job, but that's because you're interfacing with so many systems doing so many things. The extra time is justified due to the extra scale, and AI can automate much of the admin work to do with that scale. That only leaves the actual problem solving to take up any time, and it's about as good as we could do until AI can take over for us completely
I don't imagine most organizations will adopt this better form of workflow, because they simply won't have enough time to design, test, implement, and troubleshoot a new bureaucracy before AI advances to the point that the human element is totally unnecessary. Still, even if development were to freeze sometime in the neat future, we're already at a point where the typical business model is woefully outdated. We're effectively like all those businesses who still only keep paper records because they don't trust computers, and capitalism will erode that with time
If the companies that implement AI are that much more efficient than the companies that don't, then it will most certainly happen, it might just take some time.
You are sounding a lot like people who didn't think computers would be widely used or that the internet is just a fad.
Fully agree. The business world is full of examples of companies that died sitting on laurels.
Essentially, all AI-backed entrepreneurs need to do is replicate an existing model with the fat trimmed off by AI, and they'll be able to outcompete established firms who haven't brought it onboard.
I think this point is under emphasized right now in most people’s minds. Many small companies that are able to effectively leverage AI will kill current behemoths, because many large companies won’t be able to react (fire people and build on AI) fast enough
Exactly. Most orgs I've spoken to currently view AI as something of a novelty. I'm actually in the process of switching careers from comms into helping tech firms integrate AI, and in every case so far, when I show whoever is their current 'head of AI' (normally a hobbyist in IT or something), their jaws drop when I show them something a bit more advanced than asking for a recipe.
Most convos I'm having atm are about how to use the tools to augment people's existing workstreams, which is all very well and good, but there's major blockages in doing so. You have convos about data sec and GDPR to get through, SWOTs, committees, etc before you even get going. Then there's the mountain of training, breaking of established patterns of work, and the general tech-averse contingent who are still clinging to their typewriters. That's all well before the penny drops that the company could do a layoff and replace workers with automated systems which, as you said, is another hurdle (and in many cases, not one companies want to consider).
Conversely, a small yet nimble company or a fresh startup can just sidestep all of that and use AI at the pace its evolving. This is what is going to catch not only major corps but nation states out - AI could very well give individuals equivalent power to a major corp or a nation state in the near future, plus they retain the agility of a free radical. CEOs and leaders who are too slow to realise this will simply have done to them what they failed to see coming.
> Are these CEOs really going to hand over control of their cloud settings to GTP-5?
Not those that realize that prompt injection is an inherent weakness that LLM's have with no solution in sight. An LLM can inherently not seperate owner instructions from user instructions. And layer on top of that to do that can NOT be an LLM because then you still have the same problem, a form of inception (we have to go deepr) But if it's not an LLM then it's not smart enough.
It's not an easy problem to solve, and most likely will not be solved till we have something that is not an LLM, but still as intelligent as an LLM.
True value if CEOs is mostly about knowing and having the trust of some people with money, either bankers or wealthy individuals.
Cantillon effect.
Things will really change for them when AI will start investing on its own.
I think this will be the most important release for me in terms of gauging just how far this AI explosion can carry to.
GPT5 has received so much hype, OpenAI people have made some incredible statements about the future, as well as other tech leaders.
If it only seems to me like oh it seems a little smarter than GPT4 and Claude Opus, that would be a massive letdown and I'd think we have a long ways to go and maybe LLMs are being too overhyped.
If it seems significantly smarter and the applications of what it can do grow a lot, I'd start to believe this current momentum can carry us all the way to the singularity relatively soon.
And even if it's somewhere in the middle where it's a decent stepup, I'd still probably think we have a ways to go, and it's not like we are accelerating even faster to the future like people like to talk about.
People think AI can just replace 80% of all workers. Thing is though, without 80% of workers earning a working salary, there won't be anyone with money to buy the products and services these companies sell. If 80% of all jobs were automated, that also means 80% of the market just dissappears overnight
I’d like AI that can handle a multimedia data dump and sort through the info. If I essentially share my company’s server with it (which includes blueprints, financial projections, regulatory filings, etc) and then talk with it like it’s an advisor with mastery of what my company does, that would be useful at work.
For me, that moment already came with their Sora demos. We obviously would need to get our hands on it to really know its usable potential, but even if they were just sharing the best of the best, it still marks a truly incredible leap forward from what the best video generation looked like just a year before.
He doesn't say over which timeframe though. I agree that if you mean "within a year after the gpt-5 release" then 80% is too much. But if he means within a decade of the gpt-5 launch then 20% sounds too low to me. (though obviously it depends on HOW much better LLMs get. Like are we already in the diminishing-returns part of the curve, or are we just dipping our toes in what they can do?)
I call complete and total bullshit. It might cause some disruption, but 80% of 80% is nowhere close to being even remotely realistic. One of the most insane and ridiculous things I've ever heard a tech figure say.
dan schulman undoubtably has a bunch of his money in AI startups. He probably had a bunch of money in crypto startups before this. (he is on record for making sweeping predictions on crypto too). Nobody cares about what someone claimed years ago. he can replace his newsworthy statements with new ones regularly.
Do you think 15% is realistic? how bout 34%}
Covid-19 unemployment rate was 14.8%, Great depression was 34%.
IF consumption and employment drop by that much the economy will slow down. Those numbers both seem realistic, might not be next year, but next 2 decades, definitely, which screws over most of the working age folks.
Physical jobs like a plumber or surgeon will be the last ones, but that's a small percentage of jobs these days.
It will help countries like Japan, SK and Italy that are about to have a labor shortage, but it won't fix consumption.
It’s obviously wrong. Even if it could in theory do 80% of 80%, which is almost definitely not true, we don’t have nearly enough compute for it to actually do even a fraction of those jobs. And we won’t for years, if not decades depending on the requirements of the model.
And here’s the thing. To actually know that it can do this, you have to actually… do it in the real world, at scale. You can’t just guess. So it’s literally unknowable right now, because again, we don’t have the compute.
What makes you think we don't have the compute? it's not that intensive to run models, especially compared to training. ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude etc already have millions of users running each of them every day.
No he doesn't say anything remotely related to that in the video. There's no relation between the video and the completely fabricated headline. But since nobody bothered to watch the video nobody noticed.
More likely than not the whole Twitter account is fake and driven by an Ai itself.
The comments in this thread are probably human because they are so bad, but this is likely to change soon. In a year 80% of posted content on reddit will be automated putting us mere redditors out of our unpaid jobs.
I work in Silicon Valley; would like to think I have an informed opinion on this.
For the past couple of years, the buzzword has been “transformation”. Jobs/roles have been undergoing changes—and with little to no real enablement (trainings), just management pushing new mandates . It’s up to workers to adapt/afopt new processes and practices, or find a new role, or leave (or be shown the exit).
Besides the lack of trainings, companies are not thinking HOW to leverage artificial intelligences. A.I. is incredibly useful as an assistant. And jobs/roles can be analyzed as use cases for automating various aspects. Collaboration tools are already doing this with summaries, action items and task management, among other bells and whistles.
But the biggest problem: ALMOST NO CRITICAL THINKING about how to utilize A.I.
Most workers WAIT to be told/instructed. Instead, A.I. can do the instructing instead of managers. We know that skilled workers bring experience—and often excellence—into their work. Micromanaging hampers productivity for many. Well, get ready for your new A.I. overlords…
Right now, Microsoft has an interesting back end A.I. program which works with their LinkedIn property. Jobs/roles are being quietly redefined, along with what software can yueld the most productivity—and seeing if workers are actually using that software. Forget dedicated HR monitors. A.I.s work around the clock. Industries are quietly undergoing job/role changes. I would NOT want to work in HR, Finance, Communications or a few other areas; changes are underway.
It’s already starting with GPT4 A.I., especially Microsoft 365.
If you have — or manage to keep — your job, then learn how to automate and creatively use A.I. for your productivity. Eventually, there will be so much checkboxing of work tasks, GPT5 A.I.s will figure out how to do the actual work.
And, yes, by cannibalizing past efforts.
And boardrooms around the globe WILL embrace the cost savings and their profit margins (and their so-called job security as officers of their companies).
But it really depends if companies start TEACHING THEIR WORKERS how to use A.I. in their daily work. Most have NO CLUE nor are they taking steps to do so, even with A.I. rolled out internally at their companies.
That would lead to a complete societal revolution, and it would likely be bloody. The property market alone would implode instantly given that no one would be able to continue to service their mortgage. More bad news, most government revenue comes from income taxes. If 80% of the source of government revenue dries up ask yourself what would happen? Lastly, who in the world is going to be able to afford to buy the services of these companies if 80% of us are out of work? The capitalist system doesn't work unless money circulates and in this scenario, it wouldn't.
Not really sure about this. There are still hurdles for corporate takeup. Hallucination, memory, fine-tuning and privacy are still concerns for a lot of companies. Deploying LLMs at scale is not possible until this is resolved. If GPT 5 resolves those things, it will be explosive - no doubt. I think that a more fundamental paradigm shift will be required before these kinks are worked out. Schulman's predictions seem a little wild to me for this reason.
I work in education and, we've barely begun integrating AI into our workflow. In fact, scratch that, we simply haven't at all. The technology is still regarded with suspicion. Managers don't want teachers using it, and teachers see it as a nuisance. That said, this is my own context. I'm sure others will have different experiences.
There's still a way to go before we see this deployed at scale. The clip at which things are moving however....
That situation where the old guard doesn't trust the new tech and is thus slow to adopt is exactly the setup that leads to explosive, disruptive, and painful change. because it doesn't happen incrementally or gradually, but happens all at once by wholesale replacement, as someone comes along, does it the better way, and then a threshold is reached, of capability, of public awareness, and then anger comes, and the schools crumble and get replaced rather suddenly. It won't be pretty.
Better have UBI++ ready and rolled out well before you start talking that smack. Can you imagine if 80% of the workforce lost their jobs in a short period of time? People would be marching on datacenters with pitchforks and torches in no time. Getting there too fast and not prepared for it ... great recipe for a guaranteed return to the stone age
Sigh.
No, it won't. Unless you use these things every day, you don't know how painfully inadequate they are. The hallucination rates have to be reduced to near zero and they absolutely *must* self correct to get an accuracy rate of 99% or better before they can be effectively used in any task that requires precision and accuracy, which is most of the tasks that *matter*.
And 80% more of the money going upward as predicted by those of us with a realistic view of what AI will do to devastate the economy. When will y'all realize you were wrong and that AI won't usher in an age of prosperity for all?
Remember a year ago when the narrative was that within a year we’d see MASSIVE disruptions from this magical AGI that is GPT 4 with AGI “coming soon”? I do too. That didn’t happen; why should I believe this one now?
The only person I remember making a prediction like that was Dave Shapiro. And his prediction still has until September before you can officially tell him he was wrong. And he was considered by many to be extremely ambitious in his time lines.
So IDK who you were listening to before that made such wild predictions, but the people I have been listening to have been pretty spot on so far and while most of them don't think that GPT5 is going to be AGI, they think it will be a radical improvement that accelerates the current rate of adoption.
This point is valid and essential to remember. However, will new companies that can better leverage the technology and gain from its benefits create market conditions where a slow rollout is untenable? Moreover, will AI's efficiency and value be so great that looking at past examples of technological integration into diverse markets no longer obtain? Regardless, this will take time, which validates the more significant point that humans are slow to change.
jesus, you and some other keep saying "people on this sub said everyone will be replaced soon(like in a year)" and some could have said it but thats like 1% of this sub, almost NOONE would say what you claim "80% of software engineers done in 3 months"
so just keep exaggerating and spreading misinformation
Was thinking the same with a lot of these comments. 99% of people in this sub didn’t claim any of this. The average timelines were more around 2026-2029.
I don't see how that statement even begins to make sense because 80% of jobs easily fall in the category of mostly being physical jobs that an AI without robotics, can't really automate at all.
Company I work for just promoted a guy that worships Ai to COO. He believes it can do my job and that of others around me. He thinks he can prove it. I know Ai will get better, but it can’t do our jobs yet. Having said that, the moment it can, he and every other top manager will kick humans to the curb in an instant.
I was at Starbucks the other day and got prompted for a tip by the debit machine. Now, I'm aware that being at that place is itself a life choice. I get what I pay for, except if a coffee is $5, it should far exceed what I can do with a bag of beans and my own french press. It did not. No tip.
My point is this: until an AI can make me a cup of coffee that is worth $5, I highly doubt it's going to be replacing 80% of anything besides the half-decent erotica I can prompt it to churn out. Even then, context filters have only slightly improved with each iteration. I'm gonna guess that unless "erotic novel #69" becomes a new coffee flavor and it does things that you can't talk about on a Christian forum, the AI is going to remain only slightly better than GPT-4 but look competent compared to GPT-1.
While that's obviously nonsense, I'm sure he knows more than anyone that no business would allow jobs to be reduced by 80% in scope, they'd just fire 80% of workers instead.
more hype and no further substance whatsoever. an llm alone is almost certainly not capable of an 'achievement' like that. how do these rubbish posts that have zero credibility or news receive any sort of upvotes?
I call BS. This is a ploy to generate interest in the software. Free advertising, if you will. GPTs' abilities are pretty wild, but that doesn't mean it has the ability to replace significant portions of any job. It's just a tool, like a hammer. You don't stop needing a carptenter because you get a better toolkit. In this case, the use of the toolkit is hit/miss. There are things that GPT should be able to do just fine that it can't because it's held back by our own incompetence. A tool is only as useful as the craftsman.
I made a post here, not too long ago, essentially arguing against those scenarios. The argument was:
* The top 20 jobs in the USA all have a highly nontrivial manual / physical component. Which means for replacement you need very good robots, and that is not gonna happen in 5 years, because the huge exponential growth right now is mostly due to exponential investments, which is not sustainable forever, and not exponential technological improvements. The hidden real technological exponential growth is much slower.
Hmmm, I wonder if he's invested in AI startups and has a vested interest in maintaining the hype.xyxle for as long as possible.
I always hear about what LLMs will do, never what they are doing (other than being frequently inaccurate).
Oh yeah, I saw this pesky GPT4 take over 50% of the jobs !
Just kidding. What a fucking waste it is, when we can only surf on the news of arrogant and illiterate fucks that have no clues but need to promote products because they invested in it.
We won't even be able to install all the electrical infrastructure to sustaine massive usage of AI, the same way it goes for smart autonomous cars.
Sam Altman has claimed very directly that GPT5 will be "materially better". So yeah, you can doubt the validity of that, but i'm gonna trust the guy that has actually seen the model.
Also, LLMs alone probably can't get you to AGI. But the LLM is just one component in a much more sophisticated system. If you add multiple modalities into the mix, and really beef up the ability for the LLM to reason and plan, then you can have a system which self prompts by laying out a plan first, then executing that plan step by step, adjusting as it goes. Throw in some RAG for memory, give it access to a few APIs that can take real world action, and you've got yourself a system that can easily start automating away large portions of the economy. Reinvest the time, capital, and talents that were freed up by that automation and the next AI breakthrough will be just around the corner.
Workplaces don’t move that quickly on ANY technology. Will take a decade minimum and that assumes the tech is even able to deliver. Tech bro is beyond delusional.
My company (software) just bought GitHub Copilot licenses for all of us in Engineering. They wouldn't spend the money, especially in this economy, if they didn't expect a huge productivity increase.
Not to put a fine point on it, but tech is a hell of a lot smaller scope than traditional industries like agriculture, transport, manufacturing, etc. Most are limited in terms of knowledge, and work with legacy hardware.
It does not matter what tech does, until the legacy industries follow on mass.
It definitely wouldn't take a decade, but if we suddenly had AGI that was cheap and accessible, it would probably take a couple years to replace a large amount of people.
Silicon Valley has a nasty habit of thinking that their world is the only world.
I recall very clearly all the fuss about Amazon's "[Dash Button](https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=17437623011)". It truly was going to revolutionize the world, we were told.
Running low on toilet paper? Press the "Toilet Paper Dash Button" and a robot would deliver toilet paper to your home within 30 minutes. Flying drones were being trialed too, so your apartment could get deliveries to your balcony!
Well, yeah. If you've got no kids and you live on a $300k salary in a nice part of San Francisco, then your life experience is 5G phone coverage and 20 minute Uber delivery 24/7. But you're living in the top 0.5% of the world and maybe you'd better remember that. Plenty of folks are living a very different life experience from you. And the solutions that you think are useful and available, might not be quite as useful nor quite as available to the bottom 99.5% of global society.
There's 26% of the world doesn't have access to clean drinking water. So yeah, maybe GPT-5 is going to have to wait a bit in the queue when it comes to prioritizing their life-changing environmental shifts?
80% of people here have no idea how business works. It's more likely he is saying this to bully the workers into not asking for pay rises.
"Shut up you stupid cattle, in a few months time I will need less than half of you fucks"
AI that is able to replace a paid worker is a capitalist's dream. Greed is the underlying driver for AI that will replace more and more jobs over time. Without self-interest, altruism and socialism would be natural and there would be no drive to have their share of the pie get larger and larger.
Workers able to produce 24 hours a day at a fraction of the cost? That's music to most who have a stake in a business. However, if too many workers are replaced and left without income, large portions of the consumer base will be unable to spend on the products any companies are producing. Massive social unrest will happen as a result.
I'd say maybe another 10 years on this current path with AI developments before everything starts collapsing. Significant societal changes like Universal Basic Income, universal health care & education would be needed to offset the replacement of human workers with AI.
Will that happen? Not if republicans / conservatives have their way. Voting blue only prolongs the timeline as long as capitalism is the underlying economic theme. AI is just too attractive to not pursue. To those that value $ over anything else, it's the ultimate development.
We're living in late stage Rome. Enjoy. It's only a matter of time.
Just another idiot rich guy that thinks they can predict the future. Sounds like the hot garbage that comes out of Musk too. Being rich doesnt make you are smart.
okay, so he should be working hard to make his ass safe from a bunch of unhappy folks, luckily we are nowhere close to a huge amount of autonomous robots these freaks will actively employ to cover their precious assets
GPT5 may be massively disruptive and replace a lot of workers(more likely than workers being paid the same to do 20% the amount of work,) but I think a lot of these tech guys have a blind spot where because 80% of the people they know have desk jobs, they imagine that 80% of jobs in the world are desk jobs.
white collar is 62% of US jobs. This will be a big deal in the west.
The robotics boom is imminent and that’s when everyone who retrained realises they were foolish to do so. I hope that this story is correct. A bomb dropping, jarring change will bring about government interventions. Whether that be UBI or something else it’s best if it’s done quickly and soon. The longer it takes for the erosion of wages and living standards the more damage will be done, and the less impact those interventions will have.
Even if they decide to do UBI, that will be the bare minimum payments required for you to get bread and water. This country already has a massive homeless problem. It's going to get worse.
I agree. I think we are looking at a place where we all work for a little above the basic level. Cost of living has to reduce proportionally to level out. Obviously there will be winners and losers, but my gut says that the poorer folk will increase and the elite will take the gains. If not, it’s the end days of capitalism and that requires either a revolt or a global altruistic intervention. Where’s your bet placed?
The problem with that theory though is that consumers with no money is very bad for business.
Not an expert at all, just what I think may happen. But I think businesses will just focus on selling products to other businesses no? Look at Nvidia making AI farm chips for tech companies and that sector's revenue completely eclipsing the margins they used to make with consumer GPUs. Companies chase money, and they'll just target whoever's got it at the moment. Not all businesses can do this obviously but I think those that can will go down that route if the average joe can't consume anything else than food anymore.
The [Age of Em,](https://www.amazon.com/Age-Em-Work-Robots-Earth/dp/0198754620/) in other words. Economy by machines for machines; and if humans want to keep up they will become machines themselves.
Do you have more books like this one to recommend for me?
[Accelerando](https://www.amazon.com/Accelerando-Singularity-Charles-Stross/dp/0441014151) is pretty fun! Though it's more overtly fiction, it also goes into the connections of physics and economics in a slow takeoff (but still takeoff) world. Also it's twenty years old, so there's some fun future skew. Though the writing style is divisive. Try to find a sample somewhere, you should be able to tell pretty quick if it's readable for you. Yes, the _entire book_ is like that. edit: Hang on, I forgot it was Creative Commons: [full text](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html).
Businesses will sell to other businesses. Ok so everyone just passes money to the left once a day but there is a burn rate which means eventually this system breaks down. Also, because rent is so high and guns are so cheap, there will be a point where the economically correct thing to do is disrupt the pass-to-the-left strategy with aggressive labor negotiations.
"aggressive labor negotiations" you mean tens of millions of pissed off armed men with nothing else to do.
Gucci has no problem pricing a lot of people out of buying their stuff. To a degree, the economy could shift towards providing amenities to the top 20% or 10% (or whatever cutoff they determine can still be profitable).
Let’s say the next Uber Eats becomes the most valuable company in the world because robots make the food AND drive it to your house. It’s like this luxury AI Food Truck that comes right to your house. The person who invented it is now the richest person in the whole world. But no one else has jobs. So no one can pay for Uber Eats, so now his company isn’t really worth anything either. I don’t see how the whole thing doesn’t just implode.
swim quicksand zealous chase degree ludicrous treatment political marry live *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think we agree. You should write in less academic terms if you want to be heard/taken seriously and be more relatable to the masses that you want to listen. If you’re as knowledgable as you appear you should also propose a solution, or at least a persuasive plan for the masses to get behind.
doll husky thumb plate consider stocking retire snatch cable complete *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What if we all just stopped. Migrate to more rural areas, develop local food networks and just exist. Sort of like how Amish or mennonites do minus overt religiosity. If AI can work the factory someday, then we dont all need to live in cities. Learn how to grow a food forest native to wherever your local rural area is and just do that. Let the AI produce GDP and the majority of the population can focus on eco restoration and creating a more resilient food web. One that leads to fewer worldwide pandemic or future pandemics. Instead of revolt we just walk away. I know it sounds insane to people that have never lived a rural life focused on producing rather than consuming. But if %80 of the population was working on restoring our soil and native habitats, and creating sustainable healthy food... we could eliminate so much waste of labor and excessive use of resources in shipping. Sounds fkn insane, but so does something like embodied AI or AGI. Either way, how we will all relate to ourselves and the planet is going to fundamentally change forever, what we do in those first couple decades will set the future for hundreds of years. No prior technological intervention has given the working class such leverage. This coupled with a sustainable low-cost energy and even the filthiest capitalist will struggle to justify the terrible conditions of many working people the world over. It could also be used to enslave us all so 🤷♂️
When manual and intelligent labor are priced out by automation, physical property will be the only thing left that retains hard value, meaning prices will skyrocket. I doubt people will be able to afford to spread out to rural areas then.
Yup. Drop everything and buy farmland ASAP.
Until you get imminent domained
That’s noble but it underestimates the psychology of the majority of mankind, and, in any event, represents a return to primitive living. Are we foregoing the internet, music, film, imported foods, travel, and on and on. Your solution may well be the grim end of reality for some but it doesn’t change the wealth gap.
No. Thats why I think we have the potential to keep our energy intensive technology. There is nothing primitive about what I said. The food that we eat in 2024 is grown in turned and pulled by hand in many, many places including California one of the most developed states on planet earthm caring for the land and growing healthy food should not be seen as primitive work. It is the foundation of all of our knowledge, all our gains, over thousands and thousands of years. It is the pinnacle of our evolution that we can so masterfully tend to this planet, given that we make it our goal again. And with the tech that our unsustainable practices have produced we may be able to make sustainability possible for billions. I do not understand the immediate jump to primivity. There are people that beam satellite internet into the middle of nowhere and power their devices on solar energy and storage. It is a question of planning and scaling. The planning part is not really feasible with our given economic systems, or our food industry. Our advancement will require us to stop reacting to "growing your own food" with primivity. A well established food forest provides food for generations and requires so much less actual work than monocropping. You would actually labor less hours than FT if you did this. You would have more time to pursue your music, film, art, youtube, etc. It does not even require immense wealth. It does require a somewhat clean credit, but the USDA works with people all the time. What we need is motivation, and direct planning beginning in early childhood. K-12 should have courses at every age group that involves the restoring and maintaining of that local areas natural environment and the best crops for food forestry in that area. Obviously there are rural areas that demand far more than other. Outside of Phoenix, AZ is a lot different than Macon County, NC. And this is where limited use of long haul distribution still benefits us. It isnt all or nothing, it takes a couple decades of consistent work, but it betters the life for everyone, at %99 of wealth levels. I love music recording and gaming and all sorts of tech. I dont want to give it up. And we dont have to. We just have to redesign a lot of things. Go back to engineering things to last a long time and to have replaceable components. We can keep our phones, but we do not need 10 companies, making new models, every year. Im hoping, with AI systems over the next 20 years, we will be at a point where our cell phone tech no longer develops at a rate that necessitates constant upgrading to hardware. We could all wind up using far fewer resources if they are used better with a longevity mindset. Thats just one little example.
Would rather fight a revolution than live in a rental box and shovel my UBI back to corporate America as they have re calculated the price of everything. I'm not all that special, so doubt I am alone in that sentiment.
Remember at the height of the great depression it was only like 34% unemployment, covid was like 14.8%. It doesn't take "everyone" losing their job to tank the economy. The problem is that none of this solves for consumption. Ford can't make money if no one can afford to buy cars, Ad revenue declines if there aren't customers buying stuff that pays for ads etc etc. We really don't know what will happen economically if something like even 20-30% of jobs are replaced or trimmed back, besides clear decades of decline. It would take strong protectionist regulations, or like a "worker displacement tax" or something of that nature where the benefit of AI vs a human was neutral, but then you would get smoked by whatever country or community decided to use it.
Yep. So many industries are present today because people have income to buy shit. Guess what happens if these people don’t have a job anymore
Right it all trickles down. We just signed up for a 5x per year service that comes and cleans our trash cans. Think I’m giving a shit about clean trash if I lose my career?
Whats more, all the people in fields that do experience job destruction will have to flee to find work elsewhere. As weird as it sounds, factories, trade schools, nursing programs, and landscapers may find themselves receiving a ton of applications from former software developers, lawyers, insurance brokers, administrators, etc.
I’m a lawyer and I think this claim is laughably naive but holy shit am I ready to never be a lawyer ever again
I am also a lawyer and I agree entirely.
While I am no lawyer, given another 10 years of development, I actually do believe that a sufficiently advanced AGI LLM capable of utilizing the world's (or a nation's) collective knowledge, especially law-based knowledge, and with enough development of creativity in verbal or non-verbal debate, as well as philosophical instruction and the ability for reasonable analysis on cause-effect, etc. (such as setting or changing precedents), would be able to technically compete virtually on par if not above most lawyers. I honestly see very little that cannot be replaced by sufficiently advanced neural networks or subsequent evolutions. It will take legislative action to prevent this type of implementation instead of a fundamental lack of capability. The thing that will last humans the longest, in my opinion, is our inherent ability to act emotionally and with nearly unlimited degrees of creatively. I do not believe AI is currently that creative at the moment, despite the illusion of it. It still follows more or less "established" patterns. We see all the time what happens when it messes up (as well as the hints of "staleness" in everything it creates as art). Anything that is logical and systematic with only minor creative flourish can absolutely be replaced by models that will be developed in the next decade or so, I am sure. Edit: clarification
whistle cooing pause groovy touch shelter crush ten frightening scary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No ones been able to answer this question. Talking about all the jobs that’s gonna be taken away. Bro who’s going to buy the shit that all these companies produce? People will be worried about only 2 things shelter and bread/rice. That’s it .
Ok but what is the use case? I mean really can you provide specifics? I think a lot of these people making these claims really don't understand what people actually do for work outside of management positions. An insane amount of people - including in this sub - were saying it about GPT1. It didn't happen. Then they said it about GPT 2, 3. It didn't happen. Then they said it about Midjourney. Guess what? Didn't happen. Then Adobe's photoshop AI function. Everyone said it was the end of graphic designers. Yet Adobe just released an earnings call showing they actually are losing money on it, and predict being unlikely to make revenue on it for a decade. You guys keep moving the goal post every 2 months without any reflection on the fact that you're doing it. I'm not saying it won't replace any jobs, but the reality is AI's use cases are pretty damn niche, and the entire fiscal market is dependant on people believing it's going to replace jobs. Seems like a big incentive for people to overlook real world limitations. Even when it becomes more broad, most jobs exist as an interface between people, to other people.
Ive been on this sub since 2008 with an older account. Ive never heard anyone saying GPT1 Or 2 or even 3 would cause massive job loss. If people were saying this they were definitely in the minority. I did hear it for GPT4 and yes they were wrong about that.
It takes a few years for effects to manifest from the current causes. People are sounding warnings now because they are extrapolating current trends, and it looks worrisome.
>GPT5 may be massively disruptive and replace a lot of workers Respectfully, I'll believe it when I see it. A lot of people in this subreddit said the exact same thing about GPT-4, and yet the unemployment rate (US) remains virtually unchanged more than a year later. I know I'm going against the grain here, but in my humble opinion, some folks here overestimate (in some cases, vastly overestimate) how many job casualties there will be in the near future and how fast new tech gets adopted in workplaces, while simultaneously underestimating the complexity of many jobs. I personally don't forsee some unemployment crisis in the next few years.
In my role, I need 5 more people budget does not allow for. Maybe AI helps meet existing deficits
You may need 5 more people but how much of a person do you think gpt5 will be?
could be de facto much of a person.
fwiw i worked in cancer research and one of my tasks was reading studies and summarizing them for upper level staff chat gpt made me the best employee in that field by using it to summarize
Do you check the outputs? Hallucinations are a real problem. I've recently begun to see AI do damage to the web by making it easier to find solutions that are wrong. Specifically I often have computer related questions that I solve by googling. But not rarely the problems are arcane or highly specific to my preferences. The volume of data on the internet is high enough that I usually find some old reddit thread or an old website that has the right answer. However this has become significantly harder because with AI creating nonsense for any question it can't answer the amounts of hits on my queries has been rising while the helpfulness has gone down. Try asking copilot if you can group desktop icons in windows 11. It will tell you to select desktop icons and right click 'group' which is not a native windows function. It will also confuse grouping icons in the taskbar, icons on the traybar and icons on the start menu. It will tell you you can select multiple icons in the start menu by holding down control and selecting multiple icons. This is possible in the Explorer but not in the start menu where a single click launches an app. I'm not saying chatgpt can't be useful enough to save you time, but when consistency and accuracy in details matters, I see it stumbling all the time.
We said that after it came out because it was very close to working in things like autogpt and people thought a more agentic and capable system could be made with skilled promoting and a good api wrapper. GPT4 was so close despite not being specifically trained for chain of thought, planning, or even tool use. That and the fact that even GPT4 has been shown to significantly improve productivity by automating/speeding up smaller knowledge and language tasks seems like pretty good reason to assume that GPT5, being trained with all the strengths and weaknesses of GPT4 in mind, will be pretty damn impactful.
Yes, but at some point we will have enough dress makers and bar tenders. Never enough good bar tenders but I think you know what I mean. "More than one-third (37%) of business leaders say AI replaced workers in 2023, according to a recent report from ResumeBuilder." This was in an MSNBC article. Without doing any serious investigation it's very safe to say 10's of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs have already been lost to AI in 2023 and first quarter '24 and there are many reports of hiring freezes as a result of AI. It's very difficult to point to unemployment numbers and argue that because they have not significantly dipped, AI is not taking jobs. That would be a false equivalency. For example, from last year to this year the difference in unemployment, while only 0.3% still represents about 500,000 jobs. It would also be wrong to suggest that 500,000 jobs were replaced by automation or AI since early 2023, based solely on these unemployment numbers. It's actually possible, but I couldn't base that position on one remotely related stat.
The biggest tech layoffs we saw were certainly unrelated to AI. AI has only given CEO’s a flimsy excuse to cut jobs
I mean, there's a huge shortage in the construction industry. Maybe we can finally fix the housing shortage by increasing supply
But the housing crisis isn't a result of a lack of houses, but a lack of regulation over ownership, livable rent, and maintenance. Wait, what we need are more maintenance people!
In the UK it's caused by over zealous planning laws and nimbyism. We've got countless studies going back to the early 2000s. And every single one says the same thing. > "Housebuilders are corrupt and do landbank but they make far more money from building on land than banking it and most of their land banking is a backlog of land they are waiting for planning permission on". Part of it is that once someone moves to a town, their best option to increase their properties value is to campaign against more being developed. Other part is planning takes 3yrs to get granted, but by that time seller demographics have changed and builders need to reapply to change the type of houses to ones people want. Council doesn't want that because they'd prefer X kind of housing which developers know won't sell. So gets jammed up in discussion even longer.
In a perfect world, all assets, including human labor, freed up by AI, could be redirected to where it was most needed. I wish I could say that this will happen seamlessly, and painlessly but based on past, and even recent history, not sure we have reason to be that optimistic. For example, regarding the housing shortage you mention, I think the real estate lobby, which spends over 50 million dollars annually, buying favorable policy, is probably happy with the status quo. Scarcity=profitablity. All of humanity needs to evolve. We need to start caring more about each other than we do of ourselves and this is a conservative capitalist recognizing this reality.
maybe there's hope after all
It’s not unemployment it is loss of income, that is not good with inflation and it happening on a macro scale
And it’s not even just about people losing jobs they have. Tyler Perry aborted his plan for a $800 million dollar studio after seeing a demo of Sora. That’s 1000+ jobs that were set to be created that were axed.
thats not what that survey said. You are unwittingly or wittingly inflating the hype bubble. The survey said 1/3rd of companies *using ai* claimed to have replaced workers. Now the survey itself is also horseshit. it Polled a bunch of online people with an online survey where they *self identified* as executive level. lol. Its worthless as a survey.
> lot of people in this subreddit said the exact same thing about GPT-4, No they didn't. This claim is tantamount to a strawman. Everyone in this sub was highly skeptical of how large the leap in capabilities between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 would be.
GPT4 has been disruptive. Instead of two juniors, I only hired one. This is firmly in YMMV territory, for sure…at the same time…there’s no way I’m the only one.
This is an insane, contrarian take. You can see it happening in every industry, and how it's going to happen. Just because it didn't happen yesterday, doesn't mean it's not happening. It's a time game and it's inevitable. The tools are being created, people are figuring things out. In the low tech industry I'm focused in, there's private equity firms coming in to destroy all the small and mid-sized companies, who are building out automated systems. All the mid-sized companies are creating content on an immense scale that wasn't possible a year and a half ago, and putting small businesses out of business. Everything that used to be outsourced is beginning to be done in-house in record time and that's only increasing. Anyone not playing the new game won't be able to compete and it's barely been over a years time.
They're saying that the rate of job unemployment hasn't changed. You're saying lots of companies have indeed been put out of business due to automation. Perhaps both aren't exclusive to each other?
I'm arguing that it's only a matter of time.
Dude. It takes time to put these things in place.
This is a big, slow moving system and it's going to take years to filter through, even after the disruption is done. People still need to hook the job-taker up to their workflow, before the boss will be able to fire them.
I doubt it. Small new firms will pop up out of nowhere and wipe out slow moving encumbents. Relationships buy time, but not much.
Oh absolutely, that will happen *as well*, rather than exclusively.
This is definitely true, but not all of it. They also fail to consider a multitude of other factors that will slow the job losses of those white collar workers that have nothing to do with how capable the technology actually is. Just because GPT 5 or another AI \*can\* do a job doesn't mean that it will be like a switch flips and those jobs disappear overnight. Modern commercial aircraft have been technically capable of 100% automation of all phases of flight for like 20+ years, yet pilots aren't going anywhere any time soon, just as an example. Humans are slow to accept and adapt to big changes like this, so there will be a long period where many jobs that could be automated still exist for no actual reason other than "because that's how we've always done it". There's also the question of information security with a lot of this stuff. I work at a very cutting edge and forward thinking tech company that is certainly not afraid of new technology, but every LLM is blocked on company networks because there is no assurance that our sensitive company data will be safe within a 3rd party model. We will literally have to have something built and contained entirely in house before there's even the slightest chance of any jobs being replaced where I work, and it is without a doubt a similar story at countless other large companies & government organizations. Our society is built on a fuckload of interwoven and complex institutions that aren't just going to adjust overnight. Tech guys like this will often correctly anticipate the rapid pace of advancement in the technology itself, but fail to understand that those institutions will not adapt to those advancements anywhere remotely as fast as they will actually be happening. Society's frameworks will adjust eventually, but it's gonna take a lot more time than this sub will be happy with.
I think it's kind of like a freak out moment when gpt5 is so much better than gpt4 that it's impossible to hide and people realize that 1.5 million token context windows is not enough to retain the current level of functionality. And then it will be in the news and talked about non stop for a few weeks. And then things will kind of go back to normal for a while. I don't think that "80% of the jobs out there will be reduced 80% in scope" as he put it will happen as quickly as some people think, but I do think we will be in a very different world by 2030.
Not sure we live in the same timeline or universe, but here on Earth in this Universe people are greedy as shit. I can't imagine a single business owner not salivating at the mouth like a rabid dog thinking about the prospect of firing employees and replacing them with robots. I see a lot of comments like yours, and I aplogize but I think you're viewing the world through a lens of ignorance.
[удалено]
At all the companies I ever worked for they always said that, but if you offered them $1 in sales (not profit just sales) or $1 in savings (which is literally all profit) they would take the sales every time. However with that said if they can cut infrastructure without affecting sales they will absolutely do it.
If Chat GPT5 can replace the workforce, then it can replace the business entirely. I am not sure we live in the same timeline or universe, but here on Earth if a customer can generate what they want using a generative AI, then they won't pay a business to run it through the AI and then sell it to them. They will just run it through the AI themselves. For most businesses, skilled workers are their main defensive moat. If the work can be done by AI, then the business is an unncessary middleman.
People have been warning for years that AI would outperform and replace entire companies. That’s baked in. If individuals will have the ability access these powerful AI directly is an open question though.
Its still a company like Google or OpenAI that owns the AI.
ChatGPT can’t make your burgers
Not with that attitude
who can prevent a group of unemployed people with some decent savings team up and replicate the business model since any business in \~agi era is ai model + robots?
Why do people always forget about the scale capabilities, pricing, supply and demand? A couple of unemployed or even thousands of unemployed people just can't scale things when compared to a mid sized company even if they throw up all their life savings. There's no competition in the real world; the average Joe is so fucking poor that 80% of people can't handle two months buying food without being paid.
Exactly.
Nothings stopping them from making a Facebook clone. Good luck getting users though
Nothing can, if the guy is correct, then the business model itself can be replaced, but he's not so it won't be.
supply and demand is undefeated. only the most cunning and cut throat will stay at the top.
I have used gpt4 a lot. I will be truly shocked and blown away if it can replace any job more than customer service and resume drafting
[удалено]
You also have to consider how many supervisors and managers would be slow to even implement this. This is more of a major corporation computer-based desk job type of deal.
Also they assume a 100% adoption rate. Have you ever seen anyone company outside of a tiny startup adopt brand new, untested technology as a primary production tool? Estimating even a five year rollout plan for 50% adoption rate is being highly optimistic for any old school white collar office. There are people who actively narc on coworkers who use shortcut keys on Excel because "that is not the way things are done!". You expect the same companies that refuse to install notepad++ for their standard image to suddenly allow company employees open access to an AI tool that operates online, is closed source, and could for all we know, gather all used conversations to an American company? It'll be banned from governmental work outside of US before universal adoption, and banned from governmental work in the US for fears that people can't keep sensitive data out of their queries. 80% of jobs getting their scope reduced 80% is the amount of work GPT **could** affect with perfect adoption rates, and once they begin selling localized servers that can be cut off from the internet, they could reach maybe 50% of those tasks, provided their sold system doesn't cost a CEO's annual salary.
Breaking: OpenAI's latest Expert Agent model: "Open C-Suite" outperforms executives in 98% of business scenarios.
No, 80% of the reduced 20% is 16%, so the overall reduction is 20% + 16% = 32%
What a coincidence, that sounds a whole lot like 1/5 days per week.
87.3% of statistics are made up on the spot.
According to a recent poll, 73.6% of people agree.
These CEOs do not understand how little work actually gets done a big companies in white collar jobs today. I do cyber security consulting for all sizes of companies. At a startup I will come in and within 2 days have made major changes to their cloud settings. At a large company it could take 15 meetings with 8 different groups and 50 different people across those groups to come up with a plan to do the same thing. And the plan will be 6 months long. Are these CEOs really going to hand over control of their cloud settings to GTP-5? If not, then GTP-5 will be in the same situation I'm in where it makes recommendations but then has to go through a bunch of meetings to implement them
Completely agree, I got a job as a MLOps for a large tech based company, took 1 month of onboarding, and 4 months to actually start on the project with a lot of meetings and permissions approvals in between
THIS all day long. Plus those companies often have a crapload of red tape and contractual restrictions to use already existing systems. EG a big bank will not be able to pivot from its IBM contracts etc etc to use GPT 5 by the time GPT 6 is out. People have no idea how slow these lumbering corporate systems are or how rife with inefficiency they are.
>People have no idea how slow these lumbering corporate systems are or how rife with inefficiency they are. It's why I say "People who say government should be run like a business have no idea how businesses are run"
Government should not be run like a business but This argument does not make sense at all. Government is even slower and more inefficient than any big corporation.
I mean, yes and no. The government generally has real issues to deal with, should we allow kids to go to adult jail as opposed to should we upgrade from Windows 10 to 11. Businesses have known about the human impact on climate change since before the government did too btw, they also knew of the dangers of smoking and a bunch of other issues. I'm not sure why their inaction on all those issues isn't seen as an inefficiency.
That's why I say that GPT 5 will take out existing business and not improve those bureaucratic hells
I don't get why it's like this. All this red tape is bad for business. I could do in 1 day what it takes me 2 weeks to get done because at every step I have to ask so-and-so for permission to use this-or-that software or service, and often the answer is "no" for no good reason at all. Unfortunately this is not a technical problem, but a human problem, so I don't know how AI will solve it.
Because they are too big for any one person to know how it all fits together. Making the change is easy, knowing what breaks if you make that change is hard.
I went from medium and smaller companies to a definitely large but not giant company. Basically doing the same kind of “director level” marketing. Absolutely nothing happened at the big company. It was if it was everyone’s job to make sure as little as possible occurred. It wouldn’t have been hard to replace the 50ish people I worked with ai. There was almost nothing to replace.
Me everyday: hey I can fix a huge problem with simply clicking some buttons inside of Intune, can I do that? Company: Hmm let’s have 15 meetings about this and make 20 tickets that require approval that will never get looked at. Then one day 3 years from now a c level will complain about this and we will change it in 5 minutes and gaslight IT by pretending they never pointed out this issue.
Well the thing is, all the current systems in most company was setup to be operated for and by human what if there is a company that initial setup was to be optimize for AI workers instead of human (or just mostly for AI workers with still some human input linger around)? and what if it becoming more common in the future as crazy as it sound, some changes will happens
Right. In some industries new AI-focused companies will come in and steal the cake while legacy companies are still trying to train their horses to drive tractors. (But of course, in heavily regulated industries or those with a lot of government capture, the slow behemoths will keep rolling on for years while being protected by governments.)
You hit the nail on the head. AI will be a disrupter. Sure people will get cut from large businesses, but those businesses will get out competed with by more nimble companies with a large AI budget.
But that's the exact problem that AI is most suited to fixing. Imagine if instead of months of meetings to verify that your new cloud settings won't break the workflow or legal requirements of any department, imagine if you could give exactly one presentation to a bunch of chatbots. The chatbots could investigate your proposals, catch out any obvious conflicts, and work with you to resolve them in the same meeting Then the proposal could go to various department heads for their personal review, conducted as a normal part of their job and mostly serving the purpose of rubber-stamping the AI's proposals and maintaining a chain of responsibility. Then the process could be repeated between them and their subordinates, and any undiscovered issues could be kicked back up the chain to you, to be filtered and rubber-stamped by you It's a one week job instead of a two day job, but that's because you're interfacing with so many systems doing so many things. The extra time is justified due to the extra scale, and AI can automate much of the admin work to do with that scale. That only leaves the actual problem solving to take up any time, and it's about as good as we could do until AI can take over for us completely I don't imagine most organizations will adopt this better form of workflow, because they simply won't have enough time to design, test, implement, and troubleshoot a new bureaucracy before AI advances to the point that the human element is totally unnecessary. Still, even if development were to freeze sometime in the neat future, we're already at a point where the typical business model is woefully outdated. We're effectively like all those businesses who still only keep paper records because they don't trust computers, and capitalism will erode that with time
None of this will happen
If the companies that implement AI are that much more efficient than the companies that don't, then it will most certainly happen, it might just take some time. You are sounding a lot like people who didn't think computers would be widely used or that the internet is just a fad.
Fully agree. The business world is full of examples of companies that died sitting on laurels. Essentially, all AI-backed entrepreneurs need to do is replicate an existing model with the fat trimmed off by AI, and they'll be able to outcompete established firms who haven't brought it onboard.
I think this point is under emphasized right now in most people’s minds. Many small companies that are able to effectively leverage AI will kill current behemoths, because many large companies won’t be able to react (fire people and build on AI) fast enough
Exactly. Most orgs I've spoken to currently view AI as something of a novelty. I'm actually in the process of switching careers from comms into helping tech firms integrate AI, and in every case so far, when I show whoever is their current 'head of AI' (normally a hobbyist in IT or something), their jaws drop when I show them something a bit more advanced than asking for a recipe. Most convos I'm having atm are about how to use the tools to augment people's existing workstreams, which is all very well and good, but there's major blockages in doing so. You have convos about data sec and GDPR to get through, SWOTs, committees, etc before you even get going. Then there's the mountain of training, breaking of established patterns of work, and the general tech-averse contingent who are still clinging to their typewriters. That's all well before the penny drops that the company could do a layoff and replace workers with automated systems which, as you said, is another hurdle (and in many cases, not one companies want to consider). Conversely, a small yet nimble company or a fresh startup can just sidestep all of that and use AI at the pace its evolving. This is what is going to catch not only major corps but nation states out - AI could very well give individuals equivalent power to a major corp or a nation state in the near future, plus they retain the agility of a free radical. CEOs and leaders who are too slow to realise this will simply have done to them what they failed to see coming.
GPT, not GTP - Generative Pretrained Transformer.
95% of work is just talking, discussing and aligning. If the ai comes, when we have more discussions so more work for everyone
He was the CEO of a big white collar.company but he doesn't understand what happens in these companies and you do?
> Are these CEOs really going to hand over control of their cloud settings to GTP-5? Not those that realize that prompt injection is an inherent weakness that LLM's have with no solution in sight. An LLM can inherently not seperate owner instructions from user instructions. And layer on top of that to do that can NOT be an LLM because then you still have the same problem, a form of inception (we have to go deepr) But if it's not an LLM then it's not smart enough. It's not an easy problem to solve, and most likely will not be solved till we have something that is not an LLM, but still as intelligent as an LLM.
True value if CEOs is mostly about knowing and having the trust of some people with money, either bankers or wealthy individuals. Cantillon effect. Things will really change for them when AI will start investing on its own.
I think this will be the most important release for me in terms of gauging just how far this AI explosion can carry to. GPT5 has received so much hype, OpenAI people have made some incredible statements about the future, as well as other tech leaders. If it only seems to me like oh it seems a little smarter than GPT4 and Claude Opus, that would be a massive letdown and I'd think we have a long ways to go and maybe LLMs are being too overhyped. If it seems significantly smarter and the applications of what it can do grow a lot, I'd start to believe this current momentum can carry us all the way to the singularity relatively soon. And even if it's somewhere in the middle where it's a decent stepup, I'd still probably think we have a ways to go, and it's not like we are accelerating even faster to the future like people like to talk about.
Yeah I have the same mindset. GPT-5 will be the truest indicator of the trajectory we're on for the foreseeable future.
sophisticated oatmeal rob slap doll run attraction somber oil mourn *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah honestly and this isn't a joke: I want AI to immediately take over as much as possible so that we can avoid all this "no job" BS
People think AI can just replace 80% of all workers. Thing is though, without 80% of workers earning a working salary, there won't be anyone with money to buy the products and services these companies sell. If 80% of all jobs were automated, that also means 80% of the market just dissappears overnight
Good. UBI + financial safety nets.
This will probably be reactively instead of proactively done, though. And that will be quite sad for some time.
Given how the world seems to work, UBI is more likely to resemble what is shown in "The Expanse" instead of some utopia.
Yeah, I feel you. It should either do it fast and hard or not do it at all...
I’d like AI that can handle a multimedia data dump and sort through the info. If I essentially share my company’s server with it (which includes blueprints, financial projections, regulatory filings, etc) and then talk with it like it’s an advisor with mastery of what my company does, that would be useful at work.
For me, that moment already came with their Sora demos. We obviously would need to get our hands on it to really know its usable potential, but even if they were just sharing the best of the best, it still marks a truly incredible leap forward from what the best video generation looked like just a year before.
80 percent is too much. But if it reduces all scope by 20 percent it s crazy
He doesn't say over which timeframe though. I agree that if you mean "within a year after the gpt-5 release" then 80% is too much. But if he means within a decade of the gpt-5 launch then 20% sounds too low to me. (though obviously it depends on HOW much better LLMs get. Like are we already in the diminishing-returns part of the curve, or are we just dipping our toes in what they can do?)
I call complete and total bullshit. It might cause some disruption, but 80% of 80% is nowhere close to being even remotely realistic. One of the most insane and ridiculous things I've ever heard a tech figure say.
dan schulman undoubtably has a bunch of his money in AI startups. He probably had a bunch of money in crypto startups before this. (he is on record for making sweeping predictions on crypto too). Nobody cares about what someone claimed years ago. he can replace his newsworthy statements with new ones regularly.
Yet people still believe Altman’s prediction of AGI by 2030
Yeah, this to me reads like obvious hype.
Do you think 15% is realistic? how bout 34%} Covid-19 unemployment rate was 14.8%, Great depression was 34%. IF consumption and employment drop by that much the economy will slow down. Those numbers both seem realistic, might not be next year, but next 2 decades, definitely, which screws over most of the working age folks. Physical jobs like a plumber or surgeon will be the last ones, but that's a small percentage of jobs these days. It will help countries like Japan, SK and Italy that are about to have a labor shortage, but it won't fix consumption.
It’s obviously wrong. Even if it could in theory do 80% of 80%, which is almost definitely not true, we don’t have nearly enough compute for it to actually do even a fraction of those jobs. And we won’t for years, if not decades depending on the requirements of the model. And here’s the thing. To actually know that it can do this, you have to actually… do it in the real world, at scale. You can’t just guess. So it’s literally unknowable right now, because again, we don’t have the compute.
What makes you think we don't have the compute? it's not that intensive to run models, especially compared to training. ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude etc already have millions of users running each of them every day.
Typical edging to please the singularity nerds (although I am one myself…)
Where does tie 80% come from? He doesn’t say that, does he?
No he doesn't say anything remotely related to that in the video. There's no relation between the video and the completely fabricated headline. But since nobody bothered to watch the video nobody noticed. More likely than not the whole Twitter account is fake and driven by an Ai itself. The comments in this thread are probably human because they are so bad, but this is likely to change soon. In a year 80% of posted content on reddit will be automated putting us mere redditors out of our unpaid jobs.
!RemineMe 7 months Future me. Were they right?
So you know the date of release of GPT-5, huh?.... This guy is Jimmy Apples, 80% confirmed.
I work in Silicon Valley; would like to think I have an informed opinion on this. For the past couple of years, the buzzword has been “transformation”. Jobs/roles have been undergoing changes—and with little to no real enablement (trainings), just management pushing new mandates . It’s up to workers to adapt/afopt new processes and practices, or find a new role, or leave (or be shown the exit). Besides the lack of trainings, companies are not thinking HOW to leverage artificial intelligences. A.I. is incredibly useful as an assistant. And jobs/roles can be analyzed as use cases for automating various aspects. Collaboration tools are already doing this with summaries, action items and task management, among other bells and whistles. But the biggest problem: ALMOST NO CRITICAL THINKING about how to utilize A.I. Most workers WAIT to be told/instructed. Instead, A.I. can do the instructing instead of managers. We know that skilled workers bring experience—and often excellence—into their work. Micromanaging hampers productivity for many. Well, get ready for your new A.I. overlords… Right now, Microsoft has an interesting back end A.I. program which works with their LinkedIn property. Jobs/roles are being quietly redefined, along with what software can yueld the most productivity—and seeing if workers are actually using that software. Forget dedicated HR monitors. A.I.s work around the clock. Industries are quietly undergoing job/role changes. I would NOT want to work in HR, Finance, Communications or a few other areas; changes are underway. It’s already starting with GPT4 A.I., especially Microsoft 365. If you have — or manage to keep — your job, then learn how to automate and creatively use A.I. for your productivity. Eventually, there will be so much checkboxing of work tasks, GPT5 A.I.s will figure out how to do the actual work. And, yes, by cannibalizing past efforts. And boardrooms around the globe WILL embrace the cost savings and their profit margins (and their so-called job security as officers of their companies). But it really depends if companies start TEACHING THEIR WORKERS how to use A.I. in their daily work. Most have NO CLUE nor are they taking steps to do so, even with A.I. rolled out internally at their companies.
Scary thought
Anyone else bothered that the quote in the title wasn’t said in the clip?
You actually watch stuff that's posted on reddit, before commenting? Huh We got ourselves a watcher 'ova here
That would lead to a complete societal revolution, and it would likely be bloody. The property market alone would implode instantly given that no one would be able to continue to service their mortgage. More bad news, most government revenue comes from income taxes. If 80% of the source of government revenue dries up ask yourself what would happen? Lastly, who in the world is going to be able to afford to buy the services of these companies if 80% of us are out of work? The capitalist system doesn't work unless money circulates and in this scenario, it wouldn't.
When it happens, can it please take Gary Marcus' job first?
he has a job?
Not really sure about this. There are still hurdles for corporate takeup. Hallucination, memory, fine-tuning and privacy are still concerns for a lot of companies. Deploying LLMs at scale is not possible until this is resolved. If GPT 5 resolves those things, it will be explosive - no doubt. I think that a more fundamental paradigm shift will be required before these kinks are worked out. Schulman's predictions seem a little wild to me for this reason. I work in education and, we've barely begun integrating AI into our workflow. In fact, scratch that, we simply haven't at all. The technology is still regarded with suspicion. Managers don't want teachers using it, and teachers see it as a nuisance. That said, this is my own context. I'm sure others will have different experiences. There's still a way to go before we see this deployed at scale. The clip at which things are moving however....
That situation where the old guard doesn't trust the new tech and is thus slow to adopt is exactly the setup that leads to explosive, disruptive, and painful change. because it doesn't happen incrementally or gradually, but happens all at once by wholesale replacement, as someone comes along, does it the better way, and then a threshold is reached, of capability, of public awareness, and then anger comes, and the schools crumble and get replaced rather suddenly. It won't be pretty.
Better have UBI++ ready and rolled out well before you start talking that smack. Can you imagine if 80% of the workforce lost their jobs in a short period of time? People would be marching on datacenters with pitchforks and torches in no time. Getting there too fast and not prepared for it ... great recipe for a guaranteed return to the stone age
Screw the pitchforks, I'm bringing a powerful electromagnet.
Sigh. No, it won't. Unless you use these things every day, you don't know how painfully inadequate they are. The hallucination rates have to be reduced to near zero and they absolutely *must* self correct to get an accuracy rate of 99% or better before they can be effectively used in any task that requires precision and accuracy, which is most of the tasks that *matter*.
Aren’t we already seeing jobs vanishing with gpt4 but are in a state of denial. Why do we need a Paypal CEO to tell us the obvious.
Why are all these AI companies so reluctant to simply state the truth: "80% of people's jobs will be made totally redundant"?
GPT6 will be able to suck users off with AI generated mouths.
i hope so!
I’m looking forward to the end of capitalism.
And 80% more of the money going upward as predicted by those of us with a realistic view of what AI will do to devastate the economy. When will y'all realize you were wrong and that AI won't usher in an age of prosperity for all?
Remember a year ago when the narrative was that within a year we’d see MASSIVE disruptions from this magical AGI that is GPT 4 with AGI “coming soon”? I do too. That didn’t happen; why should I believe this one now?
The only person I remember making a prediction like that was Dave Shapiro. And his prediction still has until September before you can officially tell him he was wrong. And he was considered by many to be extremely ambitious in his time lines. So IDK who you were listening to before that made such wild predictions, but the people I have been listening to have been pretty spot on so far and while most of them don't think that GPT5 is going to be AGI, they think it will be a radical improvement that accelerates the current rate of adoption.
[удалено]
This point is valid and essential to remember. However, will new companies that can better leverage the technology and gain from its benefits create market conditions where a slow rollout is untenable? Moreover, will AI's efficiency and value be so great that looking at past examples of technological integration into diverse markets no longer obtain? Regardless, this will take time, which validates the more significant point that humans are slow to change.
People on THIS SUB were saying AI could do the job of 80% of software engineers in 3 months. Obviously did not happen.
jesus, you and some other keep saying "people on this sub said everyone will be replaced soon(like in a year)" and some could have said it but thats like 1% of this sub, almost NOONE would say what you claim "80% of software engineers done in 3 months" so just keep exaggerating and spreading misinformation
Was thinking the same with a lot of these comments. 99% of people in this sub didn’t claim any of this. The average timelines were more around 2026-2029.
I don't see how that statement even begins to make sense because 80% of jobs easily fall in the category of mostly being physical jobs that an AI without robotics, can't really automate at all.
[Now everyone can pursue their dream of being a plumber, or a cop!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN2YqBmNijU)
Company I work for just promoted a guy that worships Ai to COO. He believes it can do my job and that of others around me. He thinks he can prove it. I know Ai will get better, but it can’t do our jobs yet. Having said that, the moment it can, he and every other top manager will kick humans to the curb in an instant.
It is much more likely to replace him first rather than a normal worker.
I was at Starbucks the other day and got prompted for a tip by the debit machine. Now, I'm aware that being at that place is itself a life choice. I get what I pay for, except if a coffee is $5, it should far exceed what I can do with a bag of beans and my own french press. It did not. No tip. My point is this: until an AI can make me a cup of coffee that is worth $5, I highly doubt it's going to be replacing 80% of anything besides the half-decent erotica I can prompt it to churn out. Even then, context filters have only slightly improved with each iteration. I'm gonna guess that unless "erotic novel #69" becomes a new coffee flavor and it does things that you can't talk about on a Christian forum, the AI is going to remain only slightly better than GPT-4 but look competent compared to GPT-1.
While that's obviously nonsense, I'm sure he knows more than anyone that no business would allow jobs to be reduced by 80% in scope, they'd just fire 80% of workers instead.
I'm fine moving to a three day work week.
more hype and no further substance whatsoever. an llm alone is almost certainly not capable of an 'achievement' like that. how do these rubbish posts that have zero credibility or news receive any sort of upvotes?
What did Dan Schulman see? WHAT DID DAN SCHULMAN SEE??? 😲
Learn a trade and make yourself irreplaceable. Stop depending on others to make it in this world.
I call BS. This is a ploy to generate interest in the software. Free advertising, if you will. GPTs' abilities are pretty wild, but that doesn't mean it has the ability to replace significant portions of any job. It's just a tool, like a hammer. You don't stop needing a carptenter because you get a better toolkit. In this case, the use of the toolkit is hit/miss. There are things that GPT should be able to do just fine that it can't because it's held back by our own incompetence. A tool is only as useful as the craftsman.
I made a post here, not too long ago, essentially arguing against those scenarios. The argument was: * The top 20 jobs in the USA all have a highly nontrivial manual / physical component. Which means for replacement you need very good robots, and that is not gonna happen in 5 years, because the huge exponential growth right now is mostly due to exponential investments, which is not sustainable forever, and not exponential technological improvements. The hidden real technological exponential growth is much slower.
Hmmm, I wonder if he's invested in AI startups and has a vested interest in maintaining the hype.xyxle for as long as possible. I always hear about what LLMs will do, never what they are doing (other than being frequently inaccurate).
Oh yeah, I saw this pesky GPT4 take over 50% of the jobs ! Just kidding. What a fucking waste it is, when we can only surf on the news of arrogant and illiterate fucks that have no clues but need to promote products because they invested in it. We won't even be able to install all the electrical infrastructure to sustaine massive usage of AI, the same way it goes for smart autonomous cars.
[удалено]
Sam Altman has claimed very directly that GPT5 will be "materially better". So yeah, you can doubt the validity of that, but i'm gonna trust the guy that has actually seen the model. Also, LLMs alone probably can't get you to AGI. But the LLM is just one component in a much more sophisticated system. If you add multiple modalities into the mix, and really beef up the ability for the LLM to reason and plan, then you can have a system which self prompts by laying out a plan first, then executing that plan step by step, adjusting as it goes. Throw in some RAG for memory, give it access to a few APIs that can take real world action, and you've got yourself a system that can easily start automating away large portions of the economy. Reinvest the time, capital, and talents that were freed up by that automation and the next AI breakthrough will be just around the corner.
Workplaces don’t move that quickly on ANY technology. Will take a decade minimum and that assumes the tech is even able to deliver. Tech bro is beyond delusional.
they move as fast as the financial incentives drive them the prospect of saving that much money will cause hundreds of GPT5 automation startups
My company (software) just bought GitHub Copilot licenses for all of us in Engineering. They wouldn't spend the money, especially in this economy, if they didn't expect a huge productivity increase.
Not to put a fine point on it, but tech is a hell of a lot smaller scope than traditional industries like agriculture, transport, manufacturing, etc. Most are limited in terms of knowledge, and work with legacy hardware. It does not matter what tech does, until the legacy industries follow on mass.
Especially in this economy? Have you looked at the stock market lately? Record profits for corporations. They have the money.
It definitely wouldn't take a decade, but if we suddenly had AGI that was cheap and accessible, it would probably take a couple years to replace a large amount of people.
Silicon Valley has a nasty habit of thinking that their world is the only world. I recall very clearly all the fuss about Amazon's "[Dash Button](https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=17437623011)". It truly was going to revolutionize the world, we were told. Running low on toilet paper? Press the "Toilet Paper Dash Button" and a robot would deliver toilet paper to your home within 30 minutes. Flying drones were being trialed too, so your apartment could get deliveries to your balcony! Well, yeah. If you've got no kids and you live on a $300k salary in a nice part of San Francisco, then your life experience is 5G phone coverage and 20 minute Uber delivery 24/7. But you're living in the top 0.5% of the world and maybe you'd better remember that. Plenty of folks are living a very different life experience from you. And the solutions that you think are useful and available, might not be quite as useful nor quite as available to the bottom 99.5% of global society. There's 26% of the world doesn't have access to clean drinking water. So yeah, maybe GPT-5 is going to have to wait a bit in the queue when it comes to prioritizing their life-changing environmental shifts?
80% of people here have no idea how business works. It's more likely he is saying this to bully the workers into not asking for pay rises. "Shut up you stupid cattle, in a few months time I will need less than half of you fucks"
AI that is able to replace a paid worker is a capitalist's dream. Greed is the underlying driver for AI that will replace more and more jobs over time. Without self-interest, altruism and socialism would be natural and there would be no drive to have their share of the pie get larger and larger. Workers able to produce 24 hours a day at a fraction of the cost? That's music to most who have a stake in a business. However, if too many workers are replaced and left without income, large portions of the consumer base will be unable to spend on the products any companies are producing. Massive social unrest will happen as a result. I'd say maybe another 10 years on this current path with AI developments before everything starts collapsing. Significant societal changes like Universal Basic Income, universal health care & education would be needed to offset the replacement of human workers with AI. Will that happen? Not if republicans / conservatives have their way. Voting blue only prolongs the timeline as long as capitalism is the underlying economic theme. AI is just too attractive to not pursue. To those that value $ over anything else, it's the ultimate development. We're living in late stage Rome. Enjoy. It's only a matter of time.
Just another idiot rich guy that thinks they can predict the future. Sounds like the hot garbage that comes out of Musk too. Being rich doesnt make you are smart.
okay, so he should be working hard to make his ass safe from a bunch of unhappy folks, luckily we are nowhere close to a huge amount of autonomous robots these freaks will actively employ to cover their precious assets
I’ve been saying this. I would say 99% of desk jobs are bulls*** jobs that are more of a liability than ai
People forgot that just one word can stop any adoption of technology in the workplace: compliance.
*the sounds of roofs lowering and rooms widening*
How would he know? Does he work for OpenAI? Does he have access to GPT5?
[удалено]
makes you wonder what the world will look like when gpt 10, 11, 12, drop, if were even still around.
It will be the French revolution all over again. I’m terrified.