undefined

points

by layer81 hours ago |

comments

by simonw1 hours ago|

[-]

The more time I spend using agent tools the less I worry about knowledge worker job loss.

It takes a skilled knowledge worker to use these things.

by keeda5 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, but I do worry about junior knowledge worker job loss. These models are very good (and getting better) at the vast dark matter of "donkey work" that happens in knowledge-based industries -- work typically done by junior devs / analysts / lawyers / consultants, paralegals, admin assistants, customer success / support, etc. -- and those roles comprise the bulk of the workforce.

And worse, these are the tasks that help the junior people eventually grow into the skilled knowledge workers required to operate models, so there's a pipeline problem too.

by kansface47 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

We'll get around to training job specific models or the equivalent. Thats just lower on the value chain for now.

by layer81 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Sure. I was challenging the parent on how the “game” they are positing would play out.

by whatshisface1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

There were no knowledge workers in the middle ages.

by wongarsu1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Back then people were mostly farmers, but we already automated that job away.

Not completely, but compared to the middle ages we 50x'd their output. Which is a great illustration what it means to make a job 50 times more productive. We went from 80-90% of the population being required to barely make enough food for everyone to survive, to 4% of the population producing such an abundance that consuming too much food has become a systemic health issue

by fodkodrasz28 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

At the mere cost of destroying soil, and polluting water and the atmosphere in only 200 years! Possibly this will also play out well, and there is a huge market of... maybe social media influencer economy to pick up those being automated out of their previous work... or rather identity, as actually much like in the middle ages, the modern world also makes the profession largely the identity of the individual.

I'm pretty skeptical on the outcomes and the costs also (natural and social as well), but possibly we can have 50x or even more software in the end! The phrase will be truer than ever:

> Software is eating the world!

by thewebguyd57 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

There definitely were what could be considered knowledge workers in the (high) middle ages, it just wasn't the majority of work like today. The knowledge workers then were just a tiny, elite faction, mostly employed by the church or directly by nobility. Kindgoms were still big bureaucracies and needed scribes, theologians, academics, lawyers.

by jrochkind11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Relatively few anyway. Monks (who wrote and edited books and managed libraries, and also taught), artists and musicians, bookkeepers/treasury/exchequer, scribes/chancery (who were the administrators of the kingdoms), and bankers all existed in European "middle ages". But a significantly smaller part of economy/society compared to "western world" now, yes.

by layer81 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

There wasn’t 20x value to pay for in the middle ages either.

by skydhash56 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Are you sure? Any functional organization requires keepers to oil the machine. First the government. The best examples were the chinese empire, the catholic church, and the various kingdoms. Or do you think that everyone was either fighting or farming? Stewardship is knowledge work. Bookkeeping is another.

by rvz1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> Who pays for that value, and from what, if all knowledge workers lose their jobs?

They do not care unless these companies can get a bailout.

UBI only exists for companies that are too big to fail. Case in point, 2008 and SVB when there was too much money on the line.

One of the AI companies attempted to guarantee themselves a way for the government to bail them out if they were close to defaulting on the debt from the data center build out.

by mikeocool1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

SVB didn't get bailed out, their investors and creditors were wiped out. You could argue depositors were bailed out -- as they took the undue risk of keeping more than $250k in a single bank (though as part of a requirement for getting a loan from SVB, you had to have your operating accounts with them. So lots of companies had no choice, as SVB was one of the few banks that would lend to them).

Arguably, the main impact of securing SVB depositors above the $250k limit is that it prevented thousands of people from being laid off that week, as their employers wouldn't have had the money to make payroll the following Wednesday.

by matwood22 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Thank you for saying this. Continuing to point at SVB as a bailout is annoying. They were not bailed out. Anyone with deposits in an accredited bank should be made whole - always. Without trusted banking we have no economy.