upvote
Does it need to?

99% of people used to work on farms. Now they don't.

Maybe ~99% of engineers won't write code in the future. They'll do some other engineering like thing...

Maybe ~99% of accountant type people won't do accounting things. They'll do some other financial thing...

We haven't even seen a rounding error in total unemployment directly attributed to AI, despite people saying the sky fell 24 months ago, and crying that's it's still falling every day since.

reply
Whether it "needs to" is its own debate.

I'm just pointing out that even with mobile phones becoming dramatically better over the past decade, that hasn't really led to the transformation of mobile apps (outside of games) that take advantage of those resources. If anything, developers have arguably become more lazy and we are seeing lower quality software being deployed because people now have enough RAM even for your 500mb static webpage. Do we really believe people will start becoming more ambitious with AI or will most suffer from skill atrophy and less agency?

reply
But your last sentence is talking about something completely different: the current reality, which most of the tech CEOs and AI boosters refuse to engage with.

For those of us in the fact-based world, the idea that AI will replace most human jobs is still just a talking point. It's a future possibility (not a future certainty).

But it's enough of a possibility that we need to be talking about it, and not just airily dismissing the concern as something that will obviously work itself out without any real problem.

Even if 99% of the current programmers go the way of 99% of people who were farming in 1750, you have to remember that a huge percentage of the farmers who were made redundant by industrialization and modern farming methods fell into destitution; many died penniless. That's not something that seems either wise or compassionate to just handwave away!

reply
> many died penniless.

99% of people died penniless in those times...

reply