Capitalism will die - but will it take us with it?
Capitalism will die - but will it take us with it?
- Introduction - -
Possible types of jobs lost
- - Automated
restaurants - -
Comments on AI art - -
Will new jobs just replace the old ones?
- - Response to
ZeroHedge - - Is
social media influencing the shiny post-robotics career?
- - Why no
unemployment crisis yet?
- - Responses /
solutions - -
Anti-UBI arguments suck
- - Summary
- - AI minimizers
are cringe -
Introduction
When a child is born - in the vast majority of cases - its ideal life path is
already decided. It will go to school, get good grades, enter a good university,
choose a profitable career path, then put in good work, climb the corporate
ladder, "earn a living" and become financially secure (we will skip considering
the extremely rare possibility of running your own business - which depends on
hundreds of the game players who didn't manage that, anyway). If it fails at any
of these steps, it incurs all the blame. Maybe it wasn't doing well enough in
school, didn't enter a good enough university, chose the wrong career path, or
didn't perform well enough as a worker. It seems our entire society is based on
this little game of justifying your own existence by performing well in it. But
what if I told you that this setup is inevitably going to collapse soon? That
your son or daughter born today, will almost certainly not be playing the same
"game" as you or your parents were - and might not be able to play any game at
all?
What am I even talking about? Cutting to the chase, the increasing automation
will decrease the amount of available jobs, meaning more pressure on the
player to perform well in the game. But, you're still in charge - and if you do
well enough, you will still succeed, right? Not necessarily; even if you fulfill
all the steps well, it might not be enough if thousands of others did so as
well - but the amount of relevant positions had decreased by half. More than
that - some jobs will disappear completely or become very rare - and we don't
necessarily know which ones, or when. What seems like a "secure job" could
become an insecure one in a flash. Therefore, even good performance in the game
won't guarantee a positive result. Anyway, what I'm going to do here is examine
the likely types of job losses, and try to predict the consequences, as well as
ways of getting us out of the mess a "post-game" world will bring about. I will
also attack some criticisms of this idea; but first - let's start with step one,
showing the jobs most likely to be replaced by automation:
Possible types of jobs lost
Delivery
Amazon has invented a drone (archive)
(MozArchive) that can
carry a product with a weight of less than 2.6 KG directly to a customer: . This
has some problems for now, like needing a certain weather and obviously the
limited weight, but it will get better.
Restaurant service
(MozArchive) - Guests
are greeted by the two 80cm robots (both named Casper) at the door. The guest’s
table number appears on their screen and one of them will lead the diner to
their seat..
Making burgers
(MozArchive) - "The
robot can slice toppings, grill a patty, assemble, and bag the burger without
any help from humans.".
Bartending
(MozArchive) - The first
robotic barista in the U.S., nicknamed "Gordon," started serving up to 120
coffee drinks an hour Jan. 30.
Factory work
(MozArchive) - While the
factory used to be run by 650 employees, only 60 of those people still work at
the factory and their primary job is to make sure the machines are running
properly.
Fruit picking
[(archive)ttps://web.archive.org/web/20190607052723/https://www.thesun.co.uk/t
ech/9160576/brexit-fruit-picking-robots/]
(MozArchive) - The
robots are able to pluck more than 25,000 raspberries per day while human
workers manage around 15,000 in an eight-hour shift.
Nursing
it is so good that According to Gizmodo, over 40 healthcare companies are
already testing the technology.
Taxi driving
(MozArchive) - The
technology allows select Singapore residents to use NuTonomy’s ride-hailing
smartphone app to book a ride in self-driving cars – at no cost..
Teaching
(MozArchive) - Saya had
been teaching for seven years. Her impressive but short CV included stints in a
few rural areas, overseas and as a substitute teacher. Not bad for someone only
seven years into the role. The difference is Saya is a remote controlled robot
who taught her first class of 10-year olds in 2009.
News writing
(MozArchive) - This AI
reporter is capable of analyzing data from the games, pulling out the most
important highlights to formulate well-constructed and informative stories.
UPDATE January 2023: now CNET is using AI to write its
stories
(MozArchive), even
financial advice. You know all the big sites that drop 15 seemingly factory
produced news pieces every day? Soon they will all be AI-generated, and we're
not prepared. Hey, when's the time for AI fact checkers? Those look
suspiciously robotic to me. Maybe they're already here :D.
Line judging
line judges (in one tournament so far - but will surely extend to others) -
Matches will be officiated with only a chair umpire, as Hawk-Eye will be making
in-play calls.. And the players like it:
https://www.reuters.com/article/tennis-nextgen-hawkeye-idINKBN1D72YA> (archiv
e)
(MozArchive) - “I think
for now live Hawk-Eye is a good thing”; “It was very fast,” he said. “It
doesn’t make mistakes. I really liked it. In every other sport there are
innovations, and this thing without line judges makes it more fair, I would
say.”, so it's unlikely to disappear.
Football judging
Something similar is happening in football
(MozArchive). The
Premier League is using goal-line technology (which automatically detects if
there was a goal or not) since 2013 - "I'm absolutely confident of its accuracy,
100 per cent. It's quick, which again is very important. That decision needs to
be an instant decision. It will be less than a second.". If football goes the
tennis way, it will also use the automatic out detection, and referees will be
just for fouls.
Military
Robotic mules are already being tested(archive)
(MozArchive) - These
guys go through pretty rough terrain, all weather conditions. Fighter robots are
- the droid is designed "to replace the person in the battle or in emergency
areas where there is a risk of explosion, fire, high background radiation, or
other conditions harmful to humans.
Voice acting
Perhaps you have heard about the recent strike (archive)
(MozArchive) of voice
actors whose union could not iron out contract terms related to artificial
intelligence. Well, what if they do iron out these contract terms? What's
supposed to be the good ending here? The VAs want meaningful AI protections that
include requiring consent and fair compensation to all performers working under
the IMA (Interactive Media Agreement). Even now I can tell you exactly how
this is going to go. A voice actor will be hired and made to speak some lines.
Then AI will generate the rest based upon those. He will give consent and
receive compensation, sure - but he will now lack a job for the rest of his
life. It will also be a lot harder for any "new" VA to find a job, as there will
be a database of all the old and already popular ones for companies to choose
from...forever. Please accept already that we can't stop the robot revolution;
what we can do - though - is to stop forcing the old societal arrangements
onto the new realities. Stop pretending that everyone needs a job, that
everyone needs to be constantly fighting for their lives. It's pointless in the
face of the machines. It's funny that - even when people decide to stand up to
evil businesses for once - it's only for their right to fair compensation. But
no one thinks about the deeper issues, that of yet another career path that will
be gone soon (I'm not an expert in AI, but I suspect that by 2030, there will
be very few VAs already) and the pillar of society - that of having to "earn
your living" - will absorb yet another crack.
Coding
Yes, the job that was considered a pinnacle of skill and "job security" just a
few years ago, so much so that it became a
meme (archive)
(MozArchive) to tell
shitty journalists to learn to code if they were kicked out of their previous
occupation. Well, karma strikes because the robot revolution is now coming for
the
coders
(MozArchive), too -
We're also using AI internally to improve our coding processes, which is
boosting productivity and efficiency. Today, more than a quarter of all new code
at Google is generated by AI, then reviewed and accepted by engineers. This
helps our engineers do more and move faster. Google is not the only company
taking advantage; Github Copilot heavily cuts time spent coding (archive)
Specifically, the developers using GitHub Copilot took on average 1 hour and 11
minutes to complete the task, while the developers who didn’t use GitHub Copilot
took on average 2 hours and 41 minutes, meaning you need only 4 developers for
what used to require 9. Though, I suspect many tasks will still require
specialized knowledge, etc. So this won't kill all coding jobs, or perhaps even
most of them - but that isn't the point. What matters is that the amount of
jobs is decreasing at a rapid rate, and there are no safe ones anymore. There
is nowhere to hide, and we must immediately drop the jungle mindset or there
will be mass starvation and corpses lying around the streets. What was promised
to us by COVID will actually be done by the robot revolution...unless we act
fast.
Lawn mowing
https://www.techspot.com/news/110097-meet-robots-cleaning-parks-fighting-fires-
mowing-lawns.html> (archive)
(MozArchive) - In
Sanford, North Carolina, ten battery-powered lawn-mowing robots now maintain
about six acres of grass around City Hall and nearby water towers. They mow up
to 23 hours per day and automatically return to charging docks when needed.
Firefighting
Yes, even such a job, that seems like it'd be immune to the robot takeover,
(MozArchive) - Kansas
City, Missouri, began using a remote-controlled firefighting robot in March 2024
to help keep firefighters out of hazardous environments. The machine, roughly
the size of a small car with tank-style treads, delivers up to 2,500 gallons of
water per minute – more than most fire engines – and can push vehicles or debris
out of its path.; During its debut at a recycling plant fire, 30 firefighters
were initially dispatched, but once the robot began working, more than half were
released to other calls. Schloegel said the machine shortened the cleanup phase
and reduced smoke in nearby neighborhoods by 12 hours. He expects future uses
to include wilderness rescues and active-shooter incidents, where remote
operations reduce personnel risk.
Translating
This should be obvious for anyone that's ever used an LLM for translations, but
we now have the stats (archive)
(MozArchive) - demand
for substitutable skills, such as writing and translation, decreased by 20–50%
relative to the counterfactual trend.
Automated restaurants
Did you know they already have fully automated restaurants in
China and
Singapore? Imagine the amount of
possible jobs lost. There are 15
million (
archive)
restaurant on average. So, the technology already exists to replace almost 500
million working people worldwide (real stats will be lower, since that site
considered "cafes" as restaurants, as well). But hey, I even doubt that the cafe
employees are somehow irreplacable, so might as well take the 500 million
figure as it is.
Comments on AI art
Since AI can now
(MozArchive), I guess
it's appropriate to give it a section. I see this is hard to take for people,
whom I've seen claim that only bad artists will be affected, or that artists can
just use AI as yet another tool (a tool, that can do everything alone? Some
tool...), or even that coming up with a prompt is some great skill (lol, what a
ridiculous cope). People just can't give up their jungle mindset, where everyone
simply must be divided into better or worse - which is exactly what will doom
us before we realize it's too late to rise up against the machines.
Realistically, AI art means yet another career down the drain, as I can't
imagine commissions staying around for much longer - unless you're really
unique; but again, that wouldn't be much help to the majority of artists that
will be replaced. And if this is such a nothingburger, why are artists
protesting so
hard? Let's wake the fuck up, and divorce creativity from earning a living
already. This won't fix the problem of meaning, but at least people won't
starve...
Will new jobs just replace the old ones?
A common argument against the idea that robots will replace us is that machines
were being invented for a long time, and they've always created more jobs than
they took. The problem is - those machines were not intelligent; they still
required a human to operate them. This is different; a robot can now clean,
cook, serve, teach, work at a factory, drive, refer sporting events, write
articles, draw without human assistance, pick fruit or play a support role in
the military, etc. all by itself. And this list will only get longer.
What possible new jobs can these robots create? Repairing them? Programming
them? Great, but that will surely be much less than all the factory and
restaurant jobs they're going to take. And not everyone is qualified to do
repair or programming. What about all the people that aren't? Even if they could
all do repair and programming, we just don't need that many of those (certainly
not 500 million and probably not even 50 million). Maybe watching the robots
over will be the new, big job opportunity - yes, I suspect that could be a
nice scam to keep the corpse of capitalism twitching for a little longer.
(MozArchive) indicate a
huge effect of the robot revolution soon - We estimate that between 400 million
and 800 million individuals could be displaced by automation and need to find
new jobs by 2030 around the world. Even engineers aren't safe - 56% are
expected to be replaced by automation (archive)
(MozArchive). Even
though - as the sports have shown - the displacement process could be slow, and
the exact date pushed further - it is inevitable. Better prepare earlier than
later.
Response to ZeroHedge
I was supposed to leave this article alone already, but recently, ZeroHedge
(MozArchive) (which is
actually a repost from
some obscure blog) trying to dismiss the effects of robotics on job
availability, which directly attacks my thesis. Funnily, it uses the same old
and tired arguments that have already been covered here. But I know a lot of
people will read it and be convinced by it, so let me give a direct reply. The
first example they use as support is the fact that ATMs supposedly did not
decrease the amount of banking jobs:
I can't find the study this graph comes from, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't
prove what they think it does. If you look at the year 1990, the amount of
banking jobs is the same as in 2010, while the demand for them is more than
four times as much - it is simply fulfilled by the machines. Also, I'd guess
that if you went further in time, the human jobs would keep decreasing. Let's
remember the situation in sports, where it took over a
decade to just
start automating things. And many things are kept around by simple inertia - we
already have ways to automate
restaurants, it's
just that noone's picking them up. So this clearly isn't the example to prove
that technological development somehow results in some job creation utopia.
Their second is The Internet, which I would have never claimed would decrease
jobs, so let's skip it. Their third is The Industrial Revolution - which again,
is just things that still require human operation, so not relevant here. Let's
just go straight to the interesting parts of their article. About automated
writing, they say:
Copywriting and marketing: ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies such
as JasperAI have swiftly changed the way content is created. For example,
at the technology company I founded, our copywriter used to take several
days to produce an article, which had to be edited before distribution. In
total, the end-to-end process took about a week which meant the company was
producing 4 articles per month. Since beginning to leverage JasperAI, the
company now produces 3-4 articles per week. That translates into more leads,
which translates into more customers, which turns into higher revenue
growth, and more hiring. Is our copywriter’s job safe? You bet. Using AI
technology doesn’t replace the need for her or her role, it supercharges it
and helps the company scale faster, leading to more hiring, not less.
So you can whip out 4 times more shitty articles than before. Great. But how
does this result in more jobs? Oh, it's because "your company grows", but it
can't do so infinitely. Eventually it will stop, and then the fact that people
have been automated away won't be possible to hide anymore. Also, if your
"company grows", others have to shrink, meaning less jobs there - since there is
limited space in the market for shitty articles. So the absolute amount of jobs
does not increase just because your particular company has "grown". Let's also
realize that - if the articles are being written by the AI and the human only
serves as the proofreader - there's nowhere to go beyond that. No magical new
jobs will be created in this field. The peak has been reached, and the human
shoved aside. Again, ZeroHedge just shoots itself in the foot here, by admitting
that the human is now playing only the second fiddle. But wait, the funniest
example of theirs is yet to come. Brace yourselves for the cherry on top:
Autonomous delivery robots: Starship Technologies is a high-profile
technology company that has successfully completed over 4 million deliveries
using its autonomous fleet of robots. It’s true that these robots have put
humans out of work by replacing the need for people to physically deliver
items. It’s also true that this technology has created hundreds of new,
specialized, higher-paying jobs for technicians, managers, operations, and
logistics specialists that ensure these robots get from point A to point B
as intended. Plus, it’s helping solve a very real problem for retailers that
unlocks growth and margin: last mile delivery.
One part of this quote in particular sticks out:
It’s also true that this technology has created hundreds of new,
specialized, higher-paying jobs for technicians, managers, operations, and
logistics specialists that ensure these robots get from point A to point B
as intended.
Bring me all those people that you allege this technology has created jobs for.
Certainly none of them are mentioned on Starship's website. This is just so
stupid on its face. Why even invent this stuff, if it doesn't actually result in
less need for human work? Hey, I know this thing surely needs programmers and
some builders, etc. But again, this is way way less than the amount of delivery
people it's going to replace; otherwise it wouldn't exist! Another attempt by
ZeroHedge to save jobism richochets against them, this time being a fatal
headshot for their thesis. But the corpse still has something to say, so let's
read further:
It’s important to note that the impact of AI on the labor market will not be
uniform across all industries and skill levels. Some industries and job
categories will likely see significant job losses. However, it will be
important for businesses and policymakers to prepare for these changes by
investing in reskilling and upskilling programs to help workers transition
to new industries and job categories.
So they admit significant job losses in some industries. But they think
reskilling and upskilling will fix it. I've already talked about
this. Again, not
everyone can be a programmer or some other advanced job. Nor should everyone
have to be. Technological development will kill teenage jobs almost entirely,
for one. Which is clearly a negative. But in the end, the raw amount of jobs
will heavily decrease, affecting everyone; and eventually, no amount of skill
will save you if the required amount of workers decreases by half or whatever.
ZeroHedge can keep living in the stone age, while we - people with eyes -
actually observe what's going on. And what's going on is everyone's dumping
(MozArchive) and surely
others. Where do they go now, ZeroHedge? WHERE?
Now this is besides the point, but an article like this would usually make me
call an outlet controlled opposition. Though there is some good material on ZH,
whenever an important topic comes around, they just end up defending the current
power structure somehow. Big guy stepping on the little guy. As they do here
(and I have many other examples). Either way, I just want you to realize that
even media that pretends to be alternative isn't always reliable. And - in my
opinion - it is really important to follow me on this issue instead of
ZeroHedge. It might determine whether we find ourselves cooked inside that
boiling pot, or manage to jump out in time. Edit: hey, let's examine the guy
who wrote this crap (arch
ive)
Michael Johnston is a Technology Advisor and Columnist at Evergreen Gavekal.
Michael is also the Co-Founder and Chief Business Officer at TEAL, a
high-growth, venture-backed Internet of Things (IoT) networking company
headquartered in Seattle, WA. Michael is a member of the Forbes Technology
Council and has held several Board and Advisory positions at early-stage
technology companies and philanthropic foundations.
We serve high net-worth individuals, families and endowments, providing
expert guidance and personalized solutions for building a secure financial
future.
Our key areas of expertise are private wealth management, family office
services, tax planning, alternative investments, and macroeconomic research.
A guy running a company, sitting on advisor positions in others, and also
writing for another company that serves high net-worth individuals (AKA the
rich). Quite the conflict of interest! Obviously this isn't just an innocent
analytical article, but one designed to shill jobism at all costs. What this guy
wants is to keep himself and his rich buddies in power. It is so obvious; I
mean look at their Family office
page (archive)
(MozArchive) - to
create a continuity bridge encompassing their legacy intentions with an
overarching goal of growing and transferring wealth across generations. AKA the
rich (and their kids) stay rich, while the poor stay poor. Hahaha. That's why he
has to make you believe there's just no way out of jobism, ever. Because to
attack jobism is to come closer to UBI or (gasp!) communism - meaning wealth
transfer towards the poor and away from this guy and his rich buddies (who never
did any real work, BTW; only abuse and trickery through "investing"). And
ZeroHedge - by republishing this parasite - shows that they support the
conspiracy of the rich to keep the poor down. Therefore, they are controlled
opposition.
WEF's Future of Jobs 2020 exposed
Recently I was looking for criticisms of the ideas in this report, and I
interested because someone seemed to advertise it as a "big hitter" that might
bury the entire thesis (he cited stats from it that supposedly show more jobs
being created than destroyed). Yet, after the pandemic circus I wasn't expecting
the WEF to get anything right, and in the end they of course didn't. If you
think this is the paper that's going to defuse the worries about the robot
revolution - well, I hope that my response will manage to put that to rest.
Let's first try to figure out the foundations of their report, which will put
everything else into proper context:
We find ourselves at a defining moment: the decisions and choices we make
today will determine the course of entire generations’ lives and
livelihoods. We have the tools at our disposal. The bounty of technological
innovation which defines our current era can be leveraged to unleash human
potential. We have the means to reskill and upskill individuals in
unprecedented numbers, to deploy precision safety nets which protect
displaced workers from destitution, and to create bespoke maps which orient
displaced workers towards the jobs of tomorrow where they will be able to
thrive.
In this paragraph they first pretend that they want the upcoming technological
explosion to be used for the human good. But a sentence later they show that, to
them, it's about "reskilling and upskilling" people. This is the first thing
that came to their minds, instead of - for example - actually figuring out
whether the lost jobs were even needed, or if people should have to be
"upskilled and reskilled" to be able to live. Therefore we can expect the entire
report to be based on keeping jobism alive at all costs.
However, the efforts to support those affected by the current crisis lag
behind the speed of disruption. It is now urgent to enact a Global Reset
towards a socio-economic system that is more fair, sustainable and
equitable, one where social mobility is reinvigorated, social cohesion
restored, and economic prosperity is compatible with a healthy planet. If
this opportunity is missed, we will face lost generations of adults and
youth who will be raised into growing inequality, discord and lost
potential.
Once again, a "nice" first sentence hides a monster behind it. Is a global reset
(managed by the same psychopaths responsible for the "pandemic") truly the only
thing that can be done? You want to restore social mobility? This just means
that you have the opportunity to get higher up the economic ladder, not that
it will necessarily happen or even is likely. Meaning they are simply hiding
"meritocracy" worship, in which you'll have to fulfill a bunch of arbitrary
requirements of the rich to simply live, and these requirements will get tougher
and tougher the more technology develops. This allows them to later blame all
the dead people on just not taking advantage of the supposed social mobility
that has been provided to them. But what I think exposes them the most (in this
paragraph) is talking about economic prosperity, which just means selling and
buying a lot - exactly what ruins this
world.
This year we find that while technology-driven job creation is still
expected to outpace job destruction over the next five years, the economic
contraction is reducing the rate of growth in the jobs of tomorrow.
It's the end of 2025 now. Five years have passed, and there obviously hasn't
been any outpacing nor a growth in the jobs of tomorrow (I wonder what those
are? Maybe they explain it later).
There is a renewed urgency to take proactive measures to ease the transition
of workers into more sustainable job opportunities. There is room for
measured optimism in the data, but supporting workers will require global,
regional and national public-private collaboration at an unprecedented scale
and speed.
Once again, the focus is on shoving workers into other jobs. Whether those jobs
are even needed, or whether everyone absolutely must justify their existence by
working, isn't considered at all.
By leveraging this publication and other insights, the Platform supports a
range of consortia and action coalitions, including the Reskilling
Revolution Initiative to provide better jobs, skills and education to one
billion people by 2030.
With the jobs landscape shifting like never before, what are the essential
skills that workers will require now and into the future? By investing in
reskilling, governments and businesses can create more inclusive
opportunities and prepare workers for the jobs of tomorrow.
Why not just free them from work? We really don't need half the shit we do.
Facilitate skills-first talent practices, ensuring equal opportunities and
prioritizing human capital amid global transitions.
That links to a page called Future Skills Alliance. Let's check it out
(MozArchive) though I
think I can guess what it's going to say:
The Future Skills Alliance is a community of business leaders and experts
dedicated to shaping the future of lifelong learning and skills policy.
Business leaders and experts. No plebs. Lifelong learning...does anyone actually
enjoy that? Unless it's for things they actually care about (and not boring,
tiring jobs).
The community is committed to making lifelong learning a reality for
everyone. It develops actionable frameworks that unlock key levers for
upskilling and reskilling, ensuring that individuals and businesses can
thrive in an ever-changing world.
Again, it is obvious the WEF wants people to keep learning for their entire life
exclusively so that they can keep up with the constantly changing,
increasingly more brutal "job market". Basically they want to make
school last forever.
The partners for this scheme include executives from electronics companies,
investment companies, banks, drug companies, job recruitment companies,
seemingly some upskilling companies (totally no conflict of interest there) etc.
I can't be bothered to go through them all but obviously I'm not going to find
too many regular people here. Hey, there is even some Bhakti
Vithalani (archive)
(MozArchive) who is
the founder and CEO of BigSpring, an AI-powered revenue acceleration platform
that “everboards” people with the latest business goals for measurable revenue
growth. Google, Pfizer, Accenture, Deloitte, SAP, Cisco, HSBC, Tata and others
have adopted BigSpring across their ecosystem of teams and partners.. Ha!
Business goals for measurable revenue growth. Do you still think any of this is
supposed to help you? The entire WEF scheme exists to shove people into
AI-adjacent jobs, so that the big companies can manage to extract from people
all the possible resources that are still remaining, then finally throw them
away after automation can do their jobs all alone. One of the partner
companies even called itself NxtWaveR Disruptive Technologies. Who sane
would use that name? But at least he made it obvious what's the point of it.
A skills first approach can deliver sustainable economic, business and
societal outcomes. Accessing alternative talent pools to address todays
skills and labor shortages enables business model reinvention, fuels
profitable growth, job creation and more inclusive employment opportunities.
And what is the current approach? Just take anyone, no skills required? If
you read between the lines, you will realize that every term used here has a
hidden meaning. Skills and labor shortages are just an illusion looking to
squeeze as much from the workers as possible, by pretending they need to be
better to deserve their jobs. Business model reinvention is the one where the
human is subservient to the AI, until he is completely thrown away. Profitable
growth is pretty straight but there isn't anything
good about it.
Job creation has been assumed to be the holy grail of societal change for
decades, but there is no positive into having to go to a place you hate to
perform useless or harmful tasks, aside from the fact that that is required to
live for most people. This is yet another attempt to shill the libertarian
jungle mindset, in
which everything bad is your fault and if you work hard and are skilled, you
will certainly reach the stars.
Going back to the original Reskilling Revolution, it has many more links that I
won't cover, but also this interesting quote:
With businesses now investing over $240 billion annually in AI and digital
infrastructure, the lack of skills remains the top barrier to unlocking the
full potential of digital transformation. What collaborative effort is
needed to bridge the skills gaps and unlock the benefits for
competitiveness, growth and productivity?
Once again it is proven that the WEF just wants to shove people into AI jobs so
that the psychos in charge (of which WEF might be a part, actually) have the
opportunity to implement their Psycho Pass-like
dystopia, as
well as just destroy the jobs faster and thus depopulate the planet faster. Hey,
sorry everyone, I was supposed to go back to the main PDF, but I just can't
resist addressing some of the stuff on this
page
The pressing challenge of closing the skills gap has been amplified by
societal unrest, technological shifts and the green transition. 39% of all
employees will need reskilling by 2030, while closing the global skills gap
could add an estimated $11.5 trillion to global GDP by 2028.
What the fuck is the fucking skills gap? Is this the shiny new manipulative term
(that of course puts 100% of the blame on the affected person's laziness,
stupidity, lack of care, etc...) they came up with to describe people's jobs
becoming deprecated? We don't need your stinky reskilling, we just need access
to the massive amounts of resources you're
appropriating. What is actually hiding behind the skills gap is more
requirements for the average employee, and the exclusion of the many that cannot
reach the required levels. And lol at the name skills accelerators! Can these
accelerators accelerate themselves out of this planet? Anyway, back to the PDF:
Skills gaps continue to be high as in-demand skills across jobs change in
the next five years. The top skills and skill groups which employers see as
rising in prominence in the lead up to 2025 include groups such as critical
thinking and analysis as well as problem-solving, and skills in
self-management such as active learning, resilience, stress tolerance and
flexibility. On average, companies estimate that around 40% of workers will
require reskilling of six months or less and 94% of business leaders report
that they expect employees to pick up new skills on the job, a sharp uptake
from 65% in 2018.
As expected, the skill gap scam is just a way for businessmen to justify
requiring more from the workers. And yeah, we'll need a lot resilience and
stress tolerance to survive the upcoming abuse.
Companies need to invest in better metrics of human and social capital
through adoption of environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics and
matched with renewed measures of human capital accounting. A significant
number of business leaders understand that reskilling employees,
particularly in industry coalitions and in public- private collaborations,
is both cost-effective and has significant mid- to long-term dividends—not
only for their enterprise but also for the benefit of society more broadly.
Companies hope to internally redeploy nearly 50% of workers displaced by
technological automation and augmentation, as opposed to making wider use of
layoffs and automation-based labour savings as a core workforce strategy.
Human [...] capital. See? You're just capital. A resource to exploit. Would
these words be used if the report wasn't aiming to manipulate? Companies hope to
internally redeploy nearly 50% of workers displaced by technological automation
and augmentation - o rly? And where will they put them? Why not just throw them
away? Can I get a real answer to this, one that I wasn't able to from
This report projects that in the mid-term, job destruction will most likely
be offset by job growth in the 'jobs of tomorrow'—the surging demand for
workers who can fill green economy jobs, roles at the forefront of the data
and AI economy, as well as new roles in engineering, cloud computing and
product development. This set of emerging professions also reflects the
continuing importance of human interaction in the new economy, with
increasing demand for care economy jobs; roles in marketing, sales and
content production; as well as roles at the forefront of people and
culture.1 Employers answering the Future of Jobs Survey are motivated to
support workers who are displaced from their current roles, and plan to
transition as many as 46% of those workers from their current jobs into
emerging opportunities. In addition, companies are looking to provide
reskilling and upskilling opportunities to the majority of their staff (73%)
cognizant of the fact that, by 2025, 44% of the skills that employees will
need to perform their roles effectively will change.
Heh, finally I have learned just what those jobs of tomorrow are. Ad
pushing,
making more useless junk that will break, and training AI and handling its
fuckups. Amazing. Oh, but there are supposed to be more care economy jobs - does
it mean an admission that more people will become depressed, sick, or dead?
Either way, so far they haven't explained how all those will be enough to fill
all the lost spots.
Early evidence from the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Survey
presented in Figure 5 suggests that, in addition to the labour market
displacement caused by this health shock, employers are set to accelerate
their job automation and augmentation agenda, raising the possibility of a
jobless recovery. Among the business leaders surveyed, just over 80% report
that they are accelerating the automation of their work processes and
expanding their use of remote work. A significant 50% also indicate that
they are set to accelerate the automation of jobs in their companies. In
addition, more than one-quarter of employers expect to temporarily reduce
their workforce, and one in five expect to permanently do so. The
International Labour Organization (ILO) projects that by the second quarter
of 2020, the equivalent of 195 million workers will have been displaced and
as jobs are transformed at a greater speed.15
Yes, it indeed is an agenda - at least we're clear here. An agenda to increase
the burdens on the worker, and finally sacrifice him after the AI (that he
possibly helped train) replaces him. This is why the WEF hasn't said anything
about actually helping the displaced people so far.
Anyway, their PDF is extremely long, so I'll skip the pandemic and inequality
sections, as they don't seem very relevant to my thesis. All I want to know is
where do they expect the displaced people to go. So let's try to find it out:
Similar to the 2018 survey, the leading positions in growing demand are
roles such as Data Analysts and Scientists, AI and Machine Learning
Specialists, Robotics Engineers, Software and Application developers as well
as Digital Transformation Specialists. However, job roles such as Process
Automation Specialists, Information Security Analysts and Internet of Things
Specialists are newly emerging among a cohort of roles which are seeing
growing demand from employers. The emergence of these roles reflects the
acceleration of automation as well as the resurgence of cybersecurity risks.
Is that it? Most of those aren't new. Can they fill the millions of lost spots?
Even if they could, can the average restaurant server be upskilled into those?
Almost all of those are computer jobs and most people just can't into those:
Upskilling might be impossible for
some
(local), as well:
Our main result is that cognitive abilities exert a significant,
independent, and broad-based effect on computer users’ performance. In
particular, users with high working memory, executive control, and
perceptual reasoning ability complete tasks more quickly and with greater
success while experiencing lower mental load. Remarkably, these effects are
similar to or even larger in magnitude than the effects of prior experience
in using computers and in completing tasks similar to those encountered in
our study.
Even if they could switch jobs, why should they have to? Maybe someone just
doesn't care to learn anything new and simply wants to do the least possible to
live and have fun? The fact that the WEF doesn't consider those possibilities
exposes them and their schemes as malicious. Now, the following quote will not
be very relevant to my thesis, but I want to cite it anyway because it's just so
telling:
Those in employment are placing larger emphasis on personal development
courses, which have seen 88% growth among that population. Those who are
unemployed have placed greater emphasis on learning digital skills such as
data analysis, computer science and information technology.
In particular, self-management skills such as mindfulness, meditation,
gratitude and kindness are among the top 10 focus areas of those in
employment in contrast to the more technical skills which were in-focus in
2019. In contrast, those who are unemployed have continued to emphasize
skills which are of relevance to emerging jobs in Engineering, Cloud
Computing, Data and AI.
If you feel confident that you can stay alive, you focus on self improvement. If
you don't, you desperately try to follow what seems hopeful to fulfill business
requirements so that they graciously let you live. And you cease caring about
things like gratitude and kindness. Hear? Jobism is the reason the world is
full of assholes. Isn't that enough of a reason to bury it completely?
When it comes to employers providing workers with training opportunities for
reskilling and upskilling, in contrast to previous years, employers are
expecting to lean more fully on informal as opposed to formal learning. In
the Future of Jobs Survey, 94% of business leaders report that they expect
employees to pick up new skills on the job, a sharp uptake from 65% in 2018.
An organization’s learning curricula is expected to blend different
approaches—drawing on internal and external expertise, on new education
technology tools and using both formal and informal methods of skills
acquisition.
As I said, the robot revolution means more pressure put on the worker.
The challenges facing labour markets today are significant but not
insurmountable. To jointly lead economies and societies to greater
prosperity, the public and private sector will need to tackle the factors
that lead to the misallocation and waste of human capabilities and
potential. For over half a century, economic thinkers have been able to
track the benefits of expanding human skills and capabilities to economic
prosperity. One of the most valuable assets of any economy or company is its
human capital–the skills, capabilities and innovation of its citizens.
Distortions that undercut individuals’ skills development and their ability
to find a job that matches their current and potential capabilities erode
the factors of economic productivity, innovation and growth that are derived
from harnessing human skills and capabilities.
Why are labour markets most important, and not something like human life and
dignity? Why is economic prosperity the master measure? It's just buying and
selling and has nothing to do with the quality of life, or maybe is even
negatively
correlated. And look
at the manipulation in the sentence Distortions that undercut individuals’
skills development and their ability to find a job that matches their current
and potential capabilities erode the factors of economic productivity,
innovation and growth that are derived from harnessing human skills and
capabilities.. It assumes that the only reason for the human to exist is to
reach his full skills potential, and then use that to make his boss more money.
Anything that inhibits this result is called a distortion. According to this
view, a vacation is a distortion. Health problems are a distortion. A family
death is a distortion. Because, when you focus on those things, that's less
effort spent on getting better skills. This was yet another very manipulative
paragraph from the WEF, who now seems to repeat themselves more and more,
forcing me to do the same. I'm tired, and not sure if I finish the entirety of
their report if it continues like this.
To harness human potential towards greater prosperity and inclusion, leaders
will need to shift talent from areas of decline to areas of growth in the
economy. They will be called on to create effective systems for upgrading
individual’s skills and capabilities in line with emerging skills demand—in
essence, expanding access and delivery of mid-career reskilling and
upskilling through private and public sector investment and to ensure that
such efforts by workers are rewarded with adequate job opportunities. To
realize the value of such investments, businesses and governments will need
to accompany such efforts with policies and practices that ensure that
workers are able to prosper on the basis of merit rather than the
misallocation of talent due to social strata or characteristics such as race
or gender, strengthening the connection between personal income and
productivity, and expanding safety nets to alleviate economic strain during
periods of transition.
So, it's possible to just shift someone's talent from being a painter to a
computer guy (or the opposite)? I thought talent is innate. But these control
freaks don't care about any kind of barriers - if they decide you need to
upskill, then you need to, no matter how (in)viable it is. What if you fail? I
guess you fucking die, as so far they haven't said anything about those who get
rejected by the "job market". But wait! If you succeed in this magical talent
shifting, you will get rewarded with adequate job opportunities (still no
guarantee of survival). Yet if the tides of the market shift again, you will be
left on ice...unless you upskill again. How many times can the average
person manage that? How many skills are able to be learned? How long does it
take to shift talent? How's someone going to sustain himself during those times
(the corpo surely won't pay him without clear potential for "return on
investment")? Why should we have to keep upskilling just so we get thrown some
breadcrumbs? Is this the WEF's view of inclusivity? So that everyone regardless
of their characteristics gets tortured the same?
Research shows that wages have, for some time, been misaligned from
productivity and that wage level can be as much determined by the structure
of local labour markets or disadvantaged by race or gender as they are by
workers receiving a reasonable return on their skills and productivity. When
it comes to preserving worker’s ability to save, governments can cap the
erosion of wages, ensuring that all workers are able to gain a living wage.
The economic strain on families subsisting on low wages is not conducive to
maximizing long- term human potential and leaves workers vulnerable to
disruptions. Legislating against bias on the basis of gender, race or other
characteristics protects the connection between employment, wages and the
skills and capabilities of workers—guaranteeing that the talents of all
parts of the population are used and can drive further growth and prosperity
in the economy.
O rly? I had no idea. At least they finally admit that greed is the main factor
leading to low wages. But they still assume you need to be constantly working to
live. They are still worshipping the false god of
productivity.
It's also funny how they appeal to equality once again. Really hoping to grab
that left-wing audience that they hope won't notice what they're doing? As said
before, to the WEF, the various pleb groups are allowed to be abused as long as
they are abused equally. The difference between what genders or other groups
earn is nothing compared to the humungous robbery executed by business. Not
only do they always pay us as little as they are allowed
to (including
end up recovering most of the spendings anyway by dishonest means such as adv
ertising,
which have no actual limits, among many others. The WEF doesn't speak about this
(but they will speak about the tiny in comparison "wage gap" so that you think
they're on your side) even once, because they are clearly conservatives with
an empathy paint; yet it is so thin, it still reveals the cruelty underneath.
To them, we're all simply cows raised for the sole reason of being perpetually
milked, fed the worst kind of crap so that we just barely stay alive, only to
be finally thrown away when we cannot give enough milk anymore (this is the
equivalent of AI / robotics stealing our jobs, or just us getting old or sick).
Yet since we have oversized brains, we need the beautiful lies so that we stay
in the barn.
While some social protection policies are remedial and short term, not all
support can be temporary in nature. When it comes to long-term sick leave,
disability leave or long-term unemployment, social protection becomes a
fundamental pillar of the support for its citizens on an ongoing basis. For
the purposes of this report we have focused on supporting the bounceback of
those who are or will be unemployed in the short term due to the recession
and technological change. To expand safety nets in the medium to long term,
societies will need to rebalance current public spending and consider
expanding fiscal room through effective and appropriate taxation.
Wow, they finally realized that some people are simply unfit for a full time
job? And they propose appropriate taxation to help them. Still not tackling the
business exploitation, of course - nor giving any details of how their scheme
would be accomplished. I suspect this is just pretending and they'd try to shove
even the terminally ill into a job at all costs anyway.
Governments can proactively shape the preconditions for effective labour
market transitions and worker productivity by strengthening the link between
skills, wages and employment. This can be achieved through policies that
fund reskilling and upskilling of workers who are mid-way through their
career and will need further skills to secure employment in the future of
work, policies which ensure that workers are able to create cash reserves
during periods of employment, and policies which legislate against bias in
hiring, firing and setting wages. Reskilling and upskilling policies that
have been utilized to date span the conditionality of unemployment benefits
on taking up new re- skilling and up-skilling, providing wage subsidies to
companies which extend reskilling and upskilling to workers, providing
online learning accounts to citizens, and starting to fund online learning
in addition to university degrees, TVET and school tuition.
Heh. One paragraph in which they've bothered to notice the disabled, and they're
already back to Reskilling and upskilling. What a farce. I guess the true
nature of someone always ends up breaking through, no matter how hard they might
try to cover it up.
As changes to work accelerate, employers are bearing witness to a
fundamental shift away from the linear transitions made by workers in
previous points of history from school, into specialized training, into work
and then along a progressive career ladder, defined by increasing
responsibility within an established occupation structure. In today’s labour
market, workers pivot between professions with significantly different
skill sets, and navigate mid-career job transitions accompanied by
substantial reskilling and upskilling. Those pivots are as important to the
success of firms as they are to the prosperity of workers. Without such
pivots skills shortages will remain endemic and a scarcity of adequately
skilled individuals to fill the jobs of tomorrow will lead to a persistent
productivity lag.
Wow, this is quite the cake to devour. Employers are innocently bearing witness
to the job market changes? And they are not at all contributing to increasing
the burdens on the worker? Who or what is pulling the strings, then? Everything
is so easy when you can blame stuff on unidentified external factors, that
somehow simply must happen, instead of business cruelty and greed which is
theoretically modifiable. Once again, those pivots are only important to the
[...] prosperity of workers because business and government have decided
that everyone needs to be constantly "earning a living", while the companies can
do whatever they want to exploit us and never receive any consequences. Skills
shortages will remain endemic? Then so be it. Again, in a sane system where the
human was something more than an orange to be skinned, squeezed and thrown away,
survival and basic respect would be guaranteed. The fundamental assumption that
a corporation which has giant amounts of unjustly grabbed
resources, can
require you to perform for it in any way it decides, so that it graciously lets
you live, would be gone. And so, the skills would be gained only if the person
felt like it; when nothing in her life blocked the learning and she felt that
the job was worth performing anyway. Unlike now where you simply must drop
everything and upskill or you fucking die. To talk about a productivity lag is
another manipulation, pretending that there is some static amount of tasks that
simply must be fulfilled regardless of any human damage, all while there are
actually significant amounts of unneeded
jobs (arc
hive)
(MozArchive). Wow,
this paragraph was a really good cake, filled with cream and strawberries. Now
I'm motivated to continue.
The route to unlocking the value of human potential in tandem with
profitability is to employ a ‘good jobs strategy', halting the erosion of
wages, making work meaningful and purposeful, expanding employees’ sense of
growth and achievement, promoting and developing talent on the basis of
merit and proactively designing against racial, gender or other biases.
Am I seeing clearly? A mildly sane thing finally appeared in their report?
Broken clock and all that, I guess. Still, they don't explain how they're
meaning to do all this. I don't believe that work can be made meaningful and
purposeful with their foundational assumptions.
Fundamental to this strategy are two inter- connected, ambitious priorities
which, between them, have the power to pave the way to a better, more
productive and more rewarding future of work: 1) increasing company
oversight of strategic people metrics; 2) effective job transitions from
declining to emerging roles through well-funded reskilling and upskilling
mechanisms.
It's the upskilling and productivity shilling again. I got excited too fast.
Don't forget that most of the WEF's jobs of tomorrow involve computers, and I've
cited evidence showing that most people can't manage them and some will never
be able to. So their plan is dead on arrival regardless, and what we'll instead
get is mass starvation and death.
The well-being, productivity and prosperity of individuals is at the core of
all successful economies and firms. Human ingenuity is at the core of
companies’ competitive advantage and no firm can prosper for long if it
proves damaging to the social fabric around it.
To complement such key oversight metrics, businesses can benefit from more
granular operational metrics which quantify the human capital—the skills and
capabilities of employees— within an organization. Currently, business
leaders lack the tools to adequately illustrate, diagnose and strategize for
talent capacity. While businesses and economies have extensive systems to
account for monetary assets at their disposals, there is a lag in
establishing the value of human skills and capabilities. The losses incurred
by talent attrition as well as the gains of acquiring individuals with
exceptional skills or of developing talent pools through strong reskilling
and upskilling programmes remain unrecorded and unobserved.
Maybe it's better that they don't have these tools. You know it would just lead
to more abuse, right? Currently, you go to your job, do your task, go home and
at least are able to live. In the WEF's utopia, you'd get constantly rated on
your skills and possibly fired or forcibly upskilled if the software decided
you're just too incapable. I hate this entire framing. Again, it's all about
enabling the corpo to squeeze you as much as possible, while wrapping it in
shiny, virtuous sounding phrases so that you don't notice.
Frameworks to track the value of human capital in company balance sheets, to
determine a re- investment strategy for human capital through redeployment,
reskilling and upskilling, as well as to account for return on investment
remain nascent. It is therefore not surprising that few Future of Jobs
Survey respondents expected a return on investment from reskilling and
upskilling workers within the first three months after employees complete
reskilling, and that 17% of businesses remain unsure about the return on
investment from reskilling. Survey responses also indicate that companies
continue to struggle to quantify the scale of reskilling and upskilling
investment that their companies currently make.
See? It will just result in more abuse. Because, your employer will just throw
you away if the upskilling can't be proven to result in increased profits. The
problem with the entire WEF report is that the corpo is always primary, and the
human never actually matters aside from what he's able to provide to it!
The Future of Jobs Survey signals that companies hope to internally redeploy
50% of workers displaced by technological automation and augmentation, but
cross-cutting solutions and efficiencies for funding job transitions remain
under-explored. Amidst the accelerated arrival of the automation and
augmentation of work, as well as the job destruction brought about by
COVID-19, businesses require a fast, agile and coherent workforce investment
strategy. In collaboration with the leaders engaged with the New Economy
and Society work at the World Economic Forum we have been able to identify a
set of key elements of a successful workforce investment strategy. They
include identifying workers who are being displaced from their roles;
establishing appropriate internal committees to manage the displacement;
funding reskilling and upskilling either wholly out of company budgets or by
tapping into government funding; motivating employee engagement in this
process; and tracking the long-term success of such transitions.
They hope to internally redeploy people deprecated by AI. Hope! Meaning they
don't actually care if you keep your job, it's just a hope that's going to meet
the nearest trashcan when it's revealed to be empty like the vodka bottle
you've fully drank. And when it finally does, you will be thrown away right
along with it, as the now deprecated product. To repeat myself again, reskilling
and upskilling cannot work for everyone or maybe even most people, due to them
not being computer-minded. In this paragraph, it's once again assumed that you
simply must work and justify your existence constantly (but the cruel businesses
somehow are allowed to just be).
Company leaders can ensure the success of workforce strategies by directing
the transition of employees with empathy, within the rule of law, in line
with company values and culture, by ensuring outcomes are equitable, and by
directing learning to effective resources and meaningful curricula. A range
of motivating factors can fuel reskilling and upskilling uptake—connected
broadly to employees’ sense of purpose, meaning, growth and achievement.
Employers can signal the market value of new online-first credentials by
opening up role opportunities to new cohorts of workers who have completed
mid-career reskilling and upskilling. Employers can make broader use of
hiring on the basis of potential rather than current skill sets and match
potential-based hiring with relevant training. The data featured in this
report has shown that a number of emerging roles are already staffed by
individuals who first transition into those positions and then ‘grow into’
the full skill set required. As an overarching principle, business leaders
need to place equity and diversity at the heart of their talent ecosystem,
ensuring that employees believe in their capacity to prosper based on merit.
Where is the empathy in sending people to starve and die? Even WEF's own recent
quote admitted that business only want to redeploy 50% of the displaced people
(the rest will be - of course - junked). And once again, no matter how many
tricks you apply, some or most people simply won't be able to get reskilled or
upskilled. Besides, how would you make the employees feel a sense of purpose,
meaning, growth and achievement when they're sustaining and developing the AI
monster that's going to eat them and the world alive at some point? How would
you feel if you were working on the technology that's going to be a part of the
spy dystopia? Or the one that's going to kill your
neighbors?
Oh, and finally merit rears its ugly head again. Who decides what is merited? Is
it, perhaps, what makes the corporations a lot of money, as it usually is? I
don't want to repeat myself but those are exactly the things that destroy
everything. All while
the actually essential occupations like janitors can barely sustain themselves.
In this new context, for the first time in recent years, job creation is
starting to lag behind job destruction—and this factor is poised to affect
disadvantaged workers with particular ferocity.
Oh, you finally admit it? After an entire giant essay pretending that upskilling
and reskilling will fix all problems?
Businesses are set to accelerate the digitalization of work processes,
learning, expansion of remote work, as well as the automation of tasks
within an organization. This report identifies one result of the pandemic as
an increasing urgency to address the disruption underway both by supporting
and retraining displaced workers and by monitoring the emergence of new
opportunities in the labour market.
To the business you're a resource for exploitation. They don't actually want you
nor care if you live. They will be retraining displaced workers only if they
are sure it's going to be profitable for them. And as I keep repeating, not
everyone can even be retrained for the computer jobs of tomorrow (those will
be fired). It's unavoidable that some or most of those displaced people will
simply be thrown away as the raw amount of jobs spots decreases, even with the
absolute best intentions of businesses which are totally unrealistic. Why
pretend otherwise if you don't have hidden malicious agendas?
The WEF pretends to be some kind of world saviors, but actually they serve a
role similar to Mozilla, in which they are attempting to make the libertarian
/ conservative jungle
mindset (in
Mozilla's case, it was mostly
privacy and
freedom violations)
more palatable by appealing to supposedly noble causes such as sustainability,
mobility, prosperity, a healthy planet, and safety nets. But all they truly care
about is to keep jobism - and the idea of having to justify your life 24 / 7 -
going at all costs. And to make people believe that that is actually still
viable while people are being burdened with more reskills, upskills, threats of
firing due to higher job requirements, tiredness, disease, and finally death.
Okay, the report is over. I did manage to respond to the entirety of it, after
all. And as I suspected, it's disappointing but not shocking. I saw nothing in
it that suggests that jobism is still viable. Even though they said that more
jobs will be created than lost, this is just a prediction and I saw solid no
basis for it. But what about the stats cited at the beginning of their report
(Based on these figures, we estimate that by 2025, 85 million jobs may be
displaced by a shift in the division of labour between humans and machines,
while 97 million new roles may emerge)? These were actually based on the
expectation of surveyed companies. Meaning they just got some bosses to tell
what they think will happen - bosses that might not necessarily be experts (or
may be even totally clueless) on this topic. I think other stats are more
telling anyway, such as that 43% of employers are prepared to Reduce its current
workforce due to technological integration or automation - but only 32% to
expand it. The WEF hopes that they can be pushed to graciously upskill and
reskill their employees, but it's a fool's hope and impossible anyway when you
realize the simple principle of less jobs being created than destroyed. Even if
the WEF predictions came true, that doesn't suddenly mean that all the
computer-allergic people will be able to get "upskilled" - in fact we can be
pretty confident that's not going to happen. Anyone who's ever talked with a
middle-aged "normal" person would realize how "likely" she is to be turned into
a computer whiz - but I guess the WEF sits in their echo chamber of business
leaders and experts only.
To summarize, the WEF report sucks because:
It uses "nice" manipulative language to conceal their hidden agendas. For
example, constantly appealing to equality, inclusivity, etc.
It pretends that a "global reset" is the way to fix the robot revolution,
while grassroots movements are clearly more effective and have less potential
to turn into an ugly, inescapable worldwide dictatorship / oligarchy.
It focuses on irrelevant things like economic prosperity instead of human life
and dignity.
It assumes that a human exists only to work, and the more you can squeeze him
for the better regardless of any negative effects on him. Of course, this
isn't directly stated to due the manipulation inherent in the report.
It pretends that upskilling and reskilling can magically turn anyone into
anyone else, while also not caring about the possible negative effects.
It doesn't give any solutions for the people that will be inevitably thrown
away by their employers due to either not being able to fulfill the upskilling
requirements, or just the raw amount of job spots decreasing in that specific
company.
It never questions the supremacy of business over the worker. Unlimited
property rights, the freedom for the business to set its wages, working
conditions, put up ads all over the place, appropriate all kinds of resources
is never covered even once by the WEF - though it's the foundational part
of why all the issues they talk about can even exist. The framing is all about
how business can do whatever it wants, and the worker is subservient to it;
but that maybe - just maybe - it could graciously do a little better just this
once? Please?
By the way, there is also a 2025 version of this report, which I somehow only
found after I already started writing this. It has some differences but the
foundational attitude is basically the same. Though it appears to have less of
the really juicy stuff, so I'm glad I covered this one anyway. I might get to
the new one too at some point, though.
Is social media influencing the shiny post-robotics career?
That's what some people suggest,
but it won't work. First of all, how many influencers actually end up
succeeding? Even though theoretically, anyone can make a YouTube (or OnlyFans,
etc), that doesn't
translate (archive)
(MozArchive) to
sustaining themselves through it - The typical OnlyFans creator earns about $180
per month, or roughly $140 after taxes. In the globally connected age, everyone
has access to the same celebrities, and most niches are already taken. If you
want to be a fitness influencer, or maybe strip for lonely gamers, you'll be
competing with Liver King and Amouranth (plus a few others) that have already
grabbed your would-be audience years ago. But maybe you have something unique to
offer, something no one else has thought of yet, and it goes viral and you
"win". Well, now you have blocked this path for all the others, and are also
forced to chum out content constantly, lest a copycat takes your place. And,
there are just not that many unique things out there, and they will be quickly
grabbed and "ruined". "Influencing" is just another dead end that doesn't fix
the problem of job losses at all, and presenting it as a viable career choice is
just setting up the vast majority of people for failure. It is also not
something that I believe should be encouraged either way; Liver King took huge
doses of steroids to get his build, while pretending that it was the result of
his primal principles. While Amouranth had to fake being single, then finally
reveal that she had a boyfriend that was actually running the entire operation
(MozArchive), making
her stream all day and night. So fraud, abuse and sacrificing your health is
what makes you a successful influencer these days. Is this the world we want to
show our kids? Why does no one want to question the base premise? That we need
to make ourselves valuable so that our property owning overlords will graciously
feed us? I guess the libertarian / right-wing macho brainwashing is too
effective these days. Does no one really see the dehumanization inherent in
having to satisfy arbitrary whims of the rich just so they can throw us some
breadcrumbs? And when "real" jobs dry up, I fear we will be reduced more and
more to just being circus animals for the rulers in hopes of being one of the
few% of people that don't get thrown into the sausage maker. That is why we
absolutely need to take over the infrastructure soon, instead of pretending the
current system is still viable.
Why no unemployment crisis yet?
Looking at all the occupations listed above, we see that millions of jobs are in
danger. Why don't we have an unemployment crisis yet, then? Well, there are
many steps to take from the invention of a technology to widespread adoption.
You need to create the necessary amount of machines and have businesses buy and
install them. They can cost quite a lot of money (arch
ive)
(MozArchive) (more than
one human worker per year). The Hawk-Eye tennis ball tracking system has been
invented in 2006, but it took until 2017 to use it in an official tournament
(for line judging), then another 3 years until it was used in a Grand Slam.
Hundreds of small tournaments all over the world still can't afford it. Perhaps
social factors also come into play; most people are conformists and I suspect
that bosses / company owners don't want to rock the boat in terms of robot
inclusion until that idea is more socially accepted, or when they are confident
they won't lose in profits, etc.
Responses / solutions
Politicians all over the world have been scrambling to "create jobs" (this is in
(MozArchive)) - but
there's only so much that they can do. The robot revolution cannot be
denied, regardless of intentions. Many basic jobs are already being lost, but
they will eventually come for the construction workers, doctors...maybe even
politicians themselves, as well. Another mistake is to blame it all on the
worker by telling him to get better education or skills - here's one such
example (archive)
(MozArchive). Since
this post is so disgustingly telling, let's analyze it in depth:
It's a double edged sword. In CA they raised minimum wage for SOME workers
to $20,00/hour. The employers just fired most of them and are going to
automated services instead and it is far cheaper for them in the end.
I will assume this is all true as I can't really be bothered to check, but the
fact that psycho employers decided to fire people instead of paying them
properly isn't a proof that the minimum wage is bad, only that the employers are
psychopaths. And, if the legal system worked properly, you could make this kind
of thing illegal, too. Either way, if the jobs were really replaced by robots,
then it proves my thesis - robots came in, amount of job spots lessened, and
people got fired as a result. Supposing that the business would have graciously
kept them if they agreed to work for sub-minimum wage doesn't do much to fix the
situation, as they still wouldn't earn enough to live, and would die just the
same.
Minimum wage has ALWAYS been low, very low. But minimum wage jobs were
originally designed for high schoolers to earn a few bucks part time.
Minimum wage was never really designed to support a person let alone a
family. This is why it is so critical to get a good education, go on to
college or a trade school and learn how to make more money in life. Minimum
wage was never designed to be the only income an adult would have.
I will (again) assume this is all true. If the minimum wage was originally
designed for high schoolers to earn a few bucks part time, then we can un-design
it, or rather re-design so that it is able to support a person and a family (or
even just have UBI, since again, we're talking about the robot revolution here,
and many will soon not have "wages" at all - not even minimum ones). Nothing
locks us inside this system except...the cuckery of people like this poster, and
of course the uber rich who love this mindset more than anything.
The problem today is that we have a slew of unskilled workers. They
literally have no skills and they want to be paid well for no skills. That's
just not how life works. I don't make the rules, I just acknowledge them.
And here we come to the core of this person's problem. It's those damn unskilled
workers that dare to want to be paid well for no skills (AKA "they dare to
live"). Those damn janitors whom entire civilization depends on...should just
die, according to this person. But, she doesn't make the rules, she "just
acknowledges them". You sure about it? Where is this "rule" written? Maybe this
"rule" is actually only rich people's propaganda that you thoughtlessly
swallowed?
If people choose not to pursue a trade, they can't really blame anyone but
themselves.
Doesn't help. There is a limited amount of trade jobs available, just like it is
for all the other jobs. And remember, we're talking robot revolution here (as
this same poster has admitted already happens in the first paragraph of her
post). So, if millions of those horrible unskilled workers begin either getting
kicked out by their employers who don't want to pay them a minimum wage and
would rather "hire" a machine, or alternatively just decide to pursue a trade in
preparation for it, they might soon find out it's not enough. If people were to
start switching to trade jobs en masse, they would eventually be unable to do
so as all the spots would be taken. Besides, not everyone wants to or is able to
do a trade job. Should they just die? Anyway, I looked at this person's profile
for a bit and she appears to have made some really good posts...on topics other
than this one. This shows how this specific type of propaganda is especially
penetrating. While we're at this, let's tackle another insane
post (archive)
(MozArchive) I just
found that perfectly showcases the cuck mindset:
Don't ever give up. Look at people undeservingly fighting for $15/hr wage
for flipping burgers. All of those people out there, protesting every damn
day. I always wondered how they could put that much effort into trying to
get something that they didn't deserve, yet couldn't go to school or
something similar to better themselves.
You are more a part of the problem, than the solution. Don't ever tell
people to give up.
Somehow, a thread about the "education system failing men" has turned into
attacking burger flippers. And what's wrong with them anyway? Millions of people
rely on them to make their food, every day. But, it's not an "advanced" enough
job for this person, who thinks work is all there is to life, and who entirely
swallowed the rulers' jungle mindset. Don't worry, the robots will come (already
have) for the "advanced" jobs too, but of course that won't be enough to
convince this person to stop being a cuck. And then, all of this nonsense is
wrapped into a fake positive plea to "never give up". Even though that's exactly
what the burger flippers are doing - not giving up the fight for payments that
would allow them to live. But of course, for him, the "never give up" battlecry
doesn't apply to those damned burger flippers whom he thinks are fighting
undeservingly (as in, they don't deserve to live). And yet this person doesn't
see the contradiction. I don't want to attack him specifically though, he just
conveniently appeared today. This mindset is extremely common on reddit, polish
Wykop, youtube comments, and elsewhere. I've probably seen hundreds of these
types of posts by now. UPDATE October 2025: another brainwashing victim has
just appeared, and it's so telling I just need to showcase
her
(MozArchive) (splitting
the quote so I can reply to parts separately):
It's (a minimum wage, full time job) not just for teens, it's for anyone
who doesn't need a living wage. It's for people who live with someone else
who is helping to pay or paying their bills.
Okay, so, a "minimum wage" isn't even supposed to guarantee independent life.
Meaning, in the superior country of USA (not that the others are a lot better in
this department, just to be clear), certain occupations are so worthless you're
not supposed to sustain yourself by them. Then why is it even called a
"minimum" wage? Minimum for what? Sleeping in the sewers, eating rats?
There are plenty of jobs that do pay a living wage. Why not work at one of
those?
Because someone might be unable to. Or just not like it. Or these jobs are all
taken already. How does this justify letting people die?
You get paid for what you are worth.
Who decides what you are worth? Businessmen? Why? I thought human life is worthy
by default.
Anyone can serve coffee so there is no value or worth in the skill of
serving coffee - anyone can do it so you get paid less.
Millions of people - including probably this person - rely on the coffee makers.
So how can it be said that they are valueless? What would happen if they all
went on strike? Why is the "value" of a person decided by how easy her job is?
As I said before, without janitors, the entire civilization soon collapses under
the weight of the unpicked trash. So it would seem that that would be the most
"valuable" occupation. But that is not the criteria by which they are judged.
Simply, today, businesses decide what is valuable and what isn't based on what
profits they are able to make because of it - and not because of how useful or
needed a job actually is. This is an insane way to run society; the most
actually essential jobs end up getting paid very little - not even enough to
live independently - while weapon producers earn billions. And this person
swallowed that arrangement fully.
If you are a doctor or a pilot or carpenter you get paid more because not
everyone can do it.
And why should that be the criteria? There are enough resources to pay everyone
adequately.
Professionals and trades people paid money and sacrificed for their
education, they also have much more responsibility than a server and so they
get paid more to carry that responsibility - building a bridge, flying a
plane, wiring a high voltage electrical panel. If you want a living wage -
get the skills that pay you a living wage.
Haha. "I have sacrificed for my high jungle position, so now those who haven't
are so below me they must suffer and die". How primitive. What about those who
sacrificed just as much as you, but AI came in and wrecked their occupation?
Should they have magically predicted that LLMs will shoot up in quality so much
in such a short period of time, that actually replacing coders is a realistic
worry? People like this think this way entirely because they swallowed the
insane and cruel jungle
mindset, in
which someone absolutely must be "higher" and someone "lower" and someone "even
lower" and the last one doesn't even deserve to live. Their entire conception of
life is about constantly fighting for a position on an imaginary ladder. Is
this truly all humanity is capable of? Oh and of course, the "get some skills"
monster had to rear its ugly head at the end. Anyway, the author posted
(MozArchive) a while
later in which his confusion is in full display:
Almost everything is self serve now anyway - those people wouldn't be
missed. Soon AI will make it so. Banking - online, gas station- fill your
own gas and pay at the pump, shopping- order online, transportation -
busses, self driving cars, trains. Instead of crying about a living wage at
McDonalds those people should train and learn how to maintain and repair the
equipment they currently use. That would pay a living wage.
Can you guess where the confusion lies? He figured out the robot revolution
(which I guess is better than most people), but thinks it will only target jobs
he considers unskilled (lol!) - when it already came for coders, engineers,
voice actors, the
military, etc. Of course,
people like him will keep moving the goalpost in terms of what's considered
skilled, because the point isn't to have an actual position, but a
justification to step on those "below" and sacrifice their lives to the profit
dragon. Alternatively, it's a coping mechanism for his own situation, because
he really wants to believe that if he just navigates "the market" correctly, he
will be saved (and damn the others who failed at that!). And supposedly, one of
the ways one can be saved is learning how to maintain and repair the equipment
they currently use? How?! At most it cuts some costs, but clearly not enough to
sustain yourself without a job. I suspect people like this poster would sooner
give up their own lives than actually modify their attitude - that is how deep
the jungle brainwashing is. Such people cannot face the brutal unjust reality of
the current societal arrangements - in which being smart, dedicated, and even
lucky in guessing occupations less likely to get invaded by AI, not getting
health problems, etc. isn't a guarantee of "success".
To everyone who thinks this way: you have no idea what kind of advanced
technology people are going to invent, and just because you have a "skilled job"
at the moment doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be saved. Why not just
stop pretending, and get some compassion before this whole system kills us all?
Sometimes I feel like we are all our own biggest enemies; the right-wingers /
conservatives / libertarians / ancaps always find a way to blame the person
below them, as long as they themselves have it a little better. But to the
people at the very top, they are all as much plebeian. And they will be
destroyed by the robot revolution just as easily, except maybe a few years
later.
What can be done? Clearly, politicians (at least those that are in power) will
keep supporting the current - unsustainable - system (otherwise, they would face
the fucking problem instead of pretending all is fine - we will just create
more jobs) - while people are losing their jobs and dying. Eventually, it will
be necessary to face the fact that, to do everything society needs to
function, not everyone needs to work. And it's better to admit it right now,
and change the system so that not having a job isn't an immediate disaster.
There's been an idea called "Universal Basic Income" which would give everyone a
certain amount of money unconditionally, every month. I quite like it in a
vacuum; it tips the scale of power significantly more towards the worker
(especially the dreaded unskilled worker) and away from the employer. For one,
it opens the possibility of simply leaving an abusive employer instead of
putting up with the abuse under the threat of starvation and death. It allows
one to rest, regroup and plan ahead after losing a job without the current
extreme pressure, and prevents rash decisions that might sacrifice one's health,
etc. The insane "fight for your life at all times" aspect of civilization
disappears. UBI is not perfect (we will cover some flaws in the following
section), but it fixes the problem of the robot revolution adequately.
Anti-UBI arguments suck
Equity: A society’s capacity to provide goods and services is
constrained by its resources. Our nation’s ability to provide goods and
services requires that we efficiently employ our available resources.
Do we efficiently employ our available resources now? I see a lot of
resources being wasted on wars
worthless schooling
system, production of things
made to break or be thrown out after a season, etc. There would for sure be
resources available many times over if the cause was actually important to the
people in charge.
UBI would undermine or negate the need for individuals to contribute their
labor in order to receive society’s goods and services. Do we want to enact
laws which may enable more Americans to choose a life of pure leisure rather
than professional purpose and self-development? We need public policies
that help people work, not ones that discourage work.
This is an entirely different argument, even though it pretends to be the same
one (it's the same quote in the article, I've just split it myself to be able to
reply to it separately). It's just the work fetish repeated, "work or starve" -
even if the work is useless or
you simply must justify your existence. With this mindset - again - increasing
automation will just kill all those people that lose jobs. That people would
choose a life of pure leisure is a scare tactic that has been scientifically d
isproven (archive)
Unemployment for those in the UBI experiment remained at basically the same
levels as for the control group. Moving along... to assume that Professional
purpose can only exist with the threat of starvation is quite the stretch; what
about those extremely rich sports people, actors, etc that still keep going? If
anything, UBI would make more people take up occupations that require initial
investments that they might not have (eg
tennis).
Discouraging work has - again - already been proven to not happen with UBI. Next
argument:
Politics: There are millions of Americans who are diligently working and
deferring immediate consumption for future financial security. When they
see capable people receiving money—their hard-earned money, paid in
taxes—they are riled. They are angry at those they perceive as “deadbeats,”
but even angrier at politicians who have enacted policies to transfer money
from taxpayers to UBI recipients without any expectation of work.
"I worked for my stuff, so you must too". "I suffered, so you must too". "How
dare you avoid my generational trauma!". That is all I hear in this "argument".
And hey, why are those people not worried about the deadbeats in business who
earn money by employee
abuse,
violations or environmental
destruction? Do
you not see how primitive this line of "reasoning" is? It's just "those below me
don't deserve to live" wrapped in Christmas gift paper.
Hey, I thought I'd find some real anti-UBI arguments out there, but it seems
they don't exist. So I'll come up with my own. UBI is still dependent on the
existence of money, and that comes with a bunch of
problems. The
psychopaths in charge could still take away your UBI with the press of a button
if you're "undesirable". And of course, it might just be used to pacify us so
that we don't revolt upon the mass job losses from automation. Then, they might
just pull the rug completely once the technological slavery
system gets
advanced enough (eg through
(MozArchive)) so that
resistance isn't anymore a danger (that's when the mass depopulation happens).
However - purely hypothetically - UBI is a great idea for me at the present
moment (as in, before we get communism). The problem is that we might not be
able to get it, as I don't really believe the rulers want to give it to us. And
(MozArchive), the
(MozArchive), and
popular politician - have spoken in favor of it. So, if I believed in politics
as a route for positive change, I'd try to push for UBI as the most pressing
issue. Hey, if it's supposed to work anywhere, it might as well be here. After
we get it, we can use the surely short period of time that follows to plan for a
real revolution (or
just skip the UBI step if that's what it comes down to; I really just wanted to
prove it would be a good solution if you believed in the current political /
economic system).
Yet, it might not even come to whether the rulers will give UBI to us or not.
(MozArchive) often
don't like it. If that remains so, then we'll of course never get it, and just
meekly die. As said before, the jungle mindset of right-wingers will doom us in
the end. I swear, if we're supposed to die, at least don't let it be for a
retarded reason such as "that damn burger flipper should have gotten some
skills"!
Why don't I believe the rulers really want UBI to happen, though? It's simple.
The average person today forms her entire life around her job, even if she
doesn't realize it. It's either execute your job for several hours a day - then
watch some stupid TV show because you're too tired to do anything else - or
constant worry and counting pennies because you lack a job at the moment. On the
other hand - if your survival was guaranteed regardless of what you did or
didn't do - you might suddenly find yourself in a position to notice your
surroundings. And when you realize they are shitty because of a pack of psychos
running this world, you could begin planning revolutionary activities.
Jobism is the perfect scam keeping the plebs in chains - maybe even better than
the legal system, as it's more incognito. That is why the rulers will only give
it up at the absolute last resort. They'd rather hike up the propaganda about
laziness and "upskilling" and keep pretending that everyone absolutely needs a
job until they are in a position to execute us without risk of damage to
themselves and their plans. The COVID scare basically proved they don't mind
gaslighting us forever. Though Musk and some others spoke in favor of UBI,
nothing has been done so far to actually bring it about. So I believe it's just
a bait, a hope for the plebs to get excited about and keep following the
prescription, while under the (wrong) impression that the rulers care about
their wellbeing.
UPDATE May 2025: a poll of 1000 American voters just came in, and
(MozArchive); while 30%
also believe too many people receiving food stamps is an even bigger problem
than people not getting the assistance. So nothing seems to have changed in
terms of them loving the jungle mindset; in fact it's getting worse. Anyway,
(MozArchive) and
someone vomited this:
I’ve never seen a logical, or even decent emotional, argument for why able
bodied people should be able to get free money when they choose to not work.
It’s nearly equal to stealing.
Look harder then. I'll give you more than one:
We have enough resources to give everyone what they need to live
Much of work is already replacable by AI / robotics and doesn't need to be
done by humans (see entire article for evidence)
Much of work done is useless, or even
harmful
Life shouldn't be only work
"Ability" is not binary; chronic disease develops in stages - someone might be
fit for a little work, but not a full job. Yet, that little might not be
enough to cover his costs of living.
We should not be rated on "ability" in the first place (otherwise your
grandpas or all kinds of chronically ill people will be junked)
Someone's hamster died and he needs a week to cry
Fuck you, the world sucks because of the likes of you
It's funny how these people are literally NEVER bothered about businessmen
earning money by employee
abuse,
(sounds nearly equal to stealing to me!) on "their" products, or the myriad of
other available tricks. Every single time it is "those lazy, unskilled,
weak economic actors need to get their asses to work!". What is it that explains
such brutality? Maybe these people spent most of their lives in shitty jobs and
are lashing out at those who managed to avoid their fate (even though it's a
lot harder to live with even mild chronic disease, than be healthy and work; and
the government will always try to shove you into a job unless you're halfway
dead already)? But then why not lash out at the rich, who do little or no work
or (again) sustain themselves by abuse? Why are they never examined?
Stockholm syndrome? Maybe the kicking of the lying is enjoyable to these people?
Do they really have so little foresight that they don't realize they might
be the ones getting kicked in a decade or two? Either way, this attitude needs
to stop or most of us will die soon.
Summary
Jobs are disappearing due to technological advancement. They will not be coming
back. They will not be replaced by new ones in the amounts necessary - not even
close. Meaning, millions of people will soon starve to death if currently
accepted societal assumptions are not questioned. The idea that you must "earn
your living"; or that the unemployed are lazy, stupid, or useless (and deserve
to die). The fight against your neighbor, someone as better or worse (and the
worse deserves to die), sharing is bad, dog eat dog, businesses as Gods and
workers as servants, and all the adjacent crap will result in a world where most
will die. The only fix is to give up all those assumptions.
In a sane society, pushing for increased automation would be fine, to free
people from a life centered on work faster. In reality, though, we will likely
end up in a world where, over time, jobs are slowly replaced by machines - but
the people who were doing them earlier are now starving and dying. Automation
itself is not the problem, it is the idea that everyone must be constantly
"earning a living". I just hope we can change culturally before the machines
enforce the changes on us - and that we manage to do it without millions of
corpses as collateral damage. Capitalism will die - but will it take us with
it?
AI minimizers are cringe
Seriously, I would think at this point people would have already figured out
that a robot revolution is not just coming, but heavily underway - but some
still choose to hide their heads in the sand for some reason. Are they simply
scared of the prospect of (themselves or their families?) dying by AI
eliminating their position? Well, you have to face your fears at some point (and
stand up to the psychos in power). Maybe they are so brainwashed by the jungle
mindset that they simply cannot imagine a life outside of constantly justifying
their existence? Very possible, but, even people on the left (see below) have
fallen for this. Or maybe they are simply uninformed? But it's not that hard to
figure this out. You don't have to be a whiz of physics, statistics, philosophy,
or be swimming inside Sci-hub. All you need is a pair of eyes that is able to
read stories. Like this one
(MozArchive) from three
days ago:
Kansas City, Missouri, began using a remote-controlled firefighting robot in
March 2024 to help keep firefighters out of hazardous environments. The
machine, roughly the size of a small car with tank-style treads, delivers up
to 2,500 gallons of water per minute – more than most fire engines – and
can push vehicles or debris out of its path.
During its debut at a recycling plant fire, 30 firefighters were initially
dispatched, but once the robot began working, more than half were released
to other calls. Schloegel said the machine shortened the cleanup phase and
reduced smoke in nearby neighborhoods by 12 hours. He expects future uses to
include wilderness rescues and active-shooter incidents, where remote
operations reduce personnel risk.
More than half were released to other calls. Meaning over half reduction of need
for human work.
In Sanford, North Carolina, ten battery-powered lawn-mowing robots now
maintain about six acres of grass around City Hall and nearby water towers.
They mow up to 23 hours per day and automatically return to charging docks
when needed.
The robots improve safety by eliminating the need for workers to navigate
steep slopes and reducing noise compared with traditional gas-powered
equipment. Brian Flynn, the city's horticulturist, said the constant mowing
promotes healthier lawns and less pesticide use.
See the word eliminating there? Keep it in mind while reading this
comment
(MozArchive) dismissing
the upcoming robot revolution:
Yes. Because AI cannot actually replace people, it can't do any actual work
or produce any quality. It's crap. But it can be part of a bluff and scare
tactic (as are layoffs) for having people work for less. And less. Getting
to the point of effectively being slave labor is the real goal. "AI" is
bullshit on its own.
Heh. Also, LLMs are crap? Really? When used for translating, they actually
(MozArchive) Google
Translate and the others (Their comprehensive evaluation of 242 translation
systems, including 8 large language models, and online MT systems for all
language pairs, confirmed that LLMs are outperforming traditional machine
translations.) and have slammed the demand (archive)
(MozArchive) for human
ones into the ground - demand for substitutable skills, such as writing and
translation, decreased by 20–50% relative to the counterfactual trend. Having
tested GT and DeepL against LLMs many times, I myself was able to notice the
grand canyon sized gap in quality. In fact, I consider the earlier iterations of
machine translators almost completely useless because you end up having to
spend so much effort fixing their outputs that it would be more efficient (and
less annoying) to just do it all by yourself. LLMs are different and almost
fully self-reliant; they made me give up on having a translations section on my
site, as the automated ones seemed good enough to deprecate them. How about
voice actors? Or the line judges in tennis who (again) have been literally
completely replaced (for any venue that can afford the machines), in a way this
person claims is impossible? Okay, now let's
read (archive)
(MozArchive) another
comment:
The only thing I'd add to this is that this is the real value of AI. It's
not making people more productive, it's not making products people want to
buy, and it's not adding value to basically anyone. [...]
Well, if you're gone, then you have indeed not become more productive - just
gone. Which is my point. The job losses, starvations, and deaths. It's not
(MozArchive) -Created
by Jones using the AI platform Suno, Monet’s blend of gospel and R&B has made
her perhaps the most visible AI artist to date. Jones writes about 90% of
Monet’s lyrics herself, with the rest inspired by stories from her friends and
community. Monet has charted on Hot Gospel Songs, Hot R&B Songs, Adult R&B
Airplay and Emerging Artists, among other charts, and her catalog has amassed
44.4 million official U.S. streams. Sounds like adding value (at least in terms
of profit) to me! And again, ask all those people using LLMs for translating,
solving homework, and all kinds of other things. For a "less digital" example of
adding value, did you know that your favorite sports player is partially an
AI creation (archive) (MozArchive)
already?
Advanced optical tracking systems, such as those employed during the FIFA
World Cup 2022, utilize computer vision and deep learning algorithms to
capture and analyze player and ball movements in real time [36]. These
systems provide detailed metrics on players’ external load, technical and
tactical performance, ball movement, and team behaviors [37]. Technologies
like Second Spectrum, used in National Basketball Association (NBA) games,
utilize AI and high-resolution cameras to elevate the accuracy and depth of
sports analytics, offering precise analyses of player actions and game
dynamics [38]. An additional example is the SkillCorner tracking system
(SkillCorner, Paris, France), which delivers advanced tracking data and
analytics to model and assess player performance in sports such as football,
basketball, and American football.
These systems provide sports scientists and performance analysts with a
comprehensive view of individual and team performance, offering actionable
insights for training and competition[1,2,39]. By leveraging predictive
analytics and unsupervised machine learning techniques such as clustering
and dimensionality reduction, these tools also allow sports scientists to
identify key contextual factors, such as opponent quality, tactical
imbalances, and match congestion [40,41]. This real-time analysis is
crucial for developing adaptive strategies that exploit opponents’
weaknesses. Beyond facilitating real-time analysis and strategic
adjustments, these AI tools also enhance training methodologies [42,43],
enabling coaches and analysts to perform scenario simulations by using
reinforcement learning models that predict the outcomes of various tactical
adjustments. This facilitates more dynamic decision-making, ensuring
performance strategies remain flexible and data-driven during high-stakes
matches.
It's not solely an academic masturbation exercise, either; actual, high-level
teams use these technologies:
Real-world examples, such as the Toronto Raptors’ use of a ghosting method
to simulate defensive behaviors [50], and Liverpool FC’s development of the
TacticAI system in collaboration with Google DeepMind, demonstrate how AI
can model complex in-game scenarios to predict opponent behaviors and
suggest effective counterstrategies
And just to be clear, I'm not saying any of this to "shill" for this technology
(which is an accusation I've actually encountered, just for pointing out the
massacre of the "job market"). In fact, I don't like most of the applications of
AI. I think "cloning" dead people (archive)
(MozArchive) is creepy.
I don't like people losing their pride and joy of painting, writing novels,
etc. and having all their work be fed to the AI God and mixed up (then resold by
the companies?). I don't like classic video games getting lazily remade by
AI. I don't like
(MozArchive) - A 2024
report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that in 2023,
U.S. data centers consumed 17 billion gallons (64 billion liters) of water
directly through cooling, and projects that by 2028, those figures could double
– or even quadruple. The same report estimated that in 2023, U.S. data centers
consumed an additional 211 billion gallons (800 billion liters) of water
indirectly through the electricity that powers them. I obviously don't like the
etc either. But it's all happening, and it's fruitless to pretend it's not going
to ravage the "job market" and bring about mass starvation and death. And as a
corpse, it doesn't seem you can do much about any other problem, so this one has
to be dealt with first.
Yet some people would still rather deny the robot revolution, and pretend the
current system is going to stay viable for the foreseeable future. For example,
a big deal has recently been made out of AI supposedly not bringing in a lot
of profit (archive)
(MozArchive) or
productivity increases. But let's dig into the details of the
study (local). First
of all, this paper concerns exclusively LLMs - meaning it completely misses
the effects of sports AI, restaurant AI, voice acting AI, self driving car AI,
delivery drone AI, and countless others. So even if you're not impressed with
LLMs, that is just a very small part of AI uses. Secondly, there are some
problems with this study. I mean, it seems well designed to me but it just
doesn't allow to draw sweeping conclusions. The authors seem to admit it when
they say this, for example:
Figure 1, Panel (a) shows the prevalence of employer policies related to AI
chatbot usage across our 11 occupations. Firms are now heavily invested in
AI chatbots: about 43% of workers are explicitly encouraged to use them,
another 21% are allowed, while only about 6% are explicitly prohibited from
doing so. This marks a shift from early responses to ChatGPT, when many
employers restricted its use due to concerns over data confidentiality and
output accuracy (Humlum and Vestergaard, 2025).
Figure 6 breaks down the composition of AI-related job tasks by occupation.
The most common task relates to the integration of AI chatbots into the
workplace, accounting for 15%–40% of all new tasks, with the highest shares
observed in IT support and software development. This pattern highlights
that we are currently in a phase where substantial resources are being
devoted to adapting workflows to AI chatbots. It is consistent with firms
being in the trough of a productivity J-curve (Brynjolfsson, Rock and
Syverson, 2021) and helps contextualize the modest time savings we observe
in Table 1.
It's important to realize that LLMs are still new and not well integrated
into workplaces. Only 43% of employers explicitly encourage their usage, meaning
in 57% of cases, productivity gains will be missed. Of those that do use them,
I still suspect they are just too new to be well integrated (substantial
resources are being devoted to adapting workflows to AI chatbots). What other
technology would take only a few years for its full potential to be realized?
Compare the original bicycles or cars to modern ones and you'll get what I mean.
Also consider that encouraging the usage of LLMs doesn't mean workers are going
to splurge on them instantly. In fact, that is pretty rare:
As I suspected, they're not yet well integrated. Daily usage never reaches 40%;
in most occupations it's less than 20. Imagine if it was 50%+ across the board
(which it will be in a few years) - what results could be expected then? And
yet, the media just screams "only 3% average time saved!!! AI is a dud!!!"
(After analyzing data about 25,000 workers across 7,000 workspaces, users of AI
only saved on average three percent of time.) without care for the context. 3%
is actually a lot anyway, if you think about it. Assuming a company employs 1000
people, that's 30 that could be fired without compromising outputs. There are a
few more studies like this, portrayed in the media as a debunk of AI but they
actually don't do that if you dig deeper. I won't cover them all here but I
smell some kind of a psychological operation. Numb the people by convicing them
their jobs are safe, then pull the rug, and sweep the corpses under it. And it's
kind of funny that a site called Futurism is playing the main character in
the AI minimization game.