-
Jim Kavanaugh, CEO of World Wide Technology, told CNBC that people are “too smart” to accept artificial intelligence won’t alter their work environment.
-
Business leaders shouldn’t “BS” employees about the impact of AI on jobs, Kavanaugh said, adding that they should be as transparent and honest as possible.
-
Kavanaugh, who has a net worth of $7 billion, stressed that overall he’s an optimist when it comes to AI and its ability to improve productivity.
I work in AI (cue boos).
I trust a tech CEO to tell me the truth about the future of AI as much as I’d trust Harold Shipman to care for my elderly relatives.
Ask most people in the industry, the ones with PhD’s in ML/DS, and the engineers that build the infrastructure around this stuff, and you’ll likely hear that while it’s very cool, what we’ll likely see from it is a huge improvement in productivity tooling and word processing. It’ll make workers’ lives easier.
IMO, it won’t take away any jobs any time soon. Most of the CEO’s that say it’s saved millions of hours of their engineers are, bluntly, liars. Those that say that software engineering will disappear because LLM’s will get better are either really fucking stupid, liars that are pandering to shareholders, or a mix of the two.
Where I’ll say that this person is right is that it’ll improve productivity, naturally because the tools help the workers.
Summary:
Tech bro billionaire thinks no one knows what the impact of ai will be on the market but also that the impact will be huge for employees and that everyone should learn ai.
Conclusion: Tech bro billionaire invested in ai and has realized that there is barely any real money to be made as of right now, to cope with his apparent bad judgement, he doubles down on the idea that ai soon be worth it. To continue his plan, he needs more funding and he doesn’t want to double down hard enough to do it all himself. So to find new investors, he sings the praise of ai and promises a great future, as the present looks… Well… Bad.
Jobs will be lost short term, but in 5 to 7 years we’ll all be like “Hey, remember AI? LOL!”
I work with a lot of software where ai is part of the tool set, and in a lot of use cases it comes in pretty handy and really can save time. I think ai really will kill some jobs but mostly in undesirable industries, call center and the likes, and it will deteriorate quality in customer service even more. (That’s the point where I always lol.)
Besides that: I’m quite sure that every job that gets lost due to ai will be reinstated by “demographic demand” - western nations will run out of workers sooner than they think (it’s already happening), and in a few years companies will not hire but buy workers.
Simply wait for it, and then choose the job of your likings.
There’s no connotation to “buy workers” that’s unpleasant here, nosiree!
But a quick question: how many lost jobs got replaced by “learn to code”? (I’ll need sources.) (Hint: these don’t exist.)
“Learn to script” will indeed become more common (coincidentally I had a meeting today about scripting in a DMS).
Can’t tell about numbers as that is far from my expertise.
You’re missing the point.
There are never, for all practical purposes, jobs that get recovered by disruptive technology. This is why Luddites existed for the industrial revolution and why neo-Luddites exist today. Those lost jobs? They’re lost for good. And if you let typical western “dog-eat-dog” capitalism continue the damage from this will only mount.
Those manufacturing, farming, etc. jobs that gutted working class America? They didn’t get replaced by “learn to code” jobs. The same will happen when AI replaces workers (even with inferior copies). The Luddites had a point (and it’s not the one that people seem to think it was).
It’s important for everyone to understand this. Thank you for spelling it out so clearly.
At the same time, it’s also important for everyone to understand that the Luddites lost. They lost every single war over every single technology they ever tried to protect their lives and livelihoods from. They always have, and they always will.
If we are going to SURVIVE, our survival strategy can’t rely on either ‘replacing’ jobs OR preventing disruptive technology from destroying them.
I’m not sure we can say that the Luddites lost, nor that they always will.
The actual followers of “Ned Ludd” lost, sure. But they were the first in a loooooooooooooooooooooooong line of labour activists who fought for the rights and dignity of the working class. The inheritors of “Ned Ludd” are why we had 40-hour work weeks. They’re why we had weekends. They’re why we had a middle class with all the economic benefits this brings to all (including the short-sighted monied classes). The Luddites lost the battle and won the war
Well, at least until labour in the USA and to a slightly lesser extend Canada and the UK (and likely Australia as well, by appearances) got complacent and greedy and allowed the monied classes to systematically dismantle all that the Luddites’ descendants had built up. So right now the Luddites have become beleaguered and have lost their power. The governments service the monied classes instead of the people.
But this will change. The only choice, really, is will it change in another orgy of violence or will cooler heads prevail?
Personally, since I don’t live in the affected areas, I’m fine either away. You might have a specific direction you want to lean in, however.
I spoke too broadly; I apologize.
I didn’t mean to say that they didn’t make a lasting positive impact on labor and consumer rights.
All I meant to say was that the technologies they opposed still exist and are now indispensable and (mostly) positive features of the industrial economy.
The victories you describe are positive and massive; my argument is that victories like those are possible and desirable (and necessary!) while winning a Butlerian Jihad is none of those things.
That specific field is lost. “There aren’t enough jobs” has never been more than a short term issue, while the technological progress idiots complain about is constantly moving the standard of living massively forward.
This iteration of “AI” won’t replace workers long term because it doesn’t work. But when we get to the point where it actually can, the standard of living will, once again, be massively better across the board as a direct result of the ability to do more work with less effort.
It’s a “short term issue” … but the people without jobs? Living in desperate poverty?
THEY. ARE. PEOPLE. NOT. STATISTICS.
If you’re going to introduce disruptive technology that renders a huge fraction of the populace unemployable, or even that just relegates a huge fraction of the population into low-paid, low-quality jobs plan for them as well, not just the fucking billionaire bank accounts!
That means perhaps making the billionaires pay more tax, say, to provide a buffer for the disrupted people. They can buy their next superyacht a year or two later.
There are other jobs. Adapting and changing is part of life.
Every technologically advancement throughout history has resulted in the floor, ceiling, and median quality of life significantly advancing in short order. There isn’t a group who isn’t better off very quickly as a result of the change that was always inevitable.
Change isn’t bad.
