[simonw]

Have you asked Priya for her opinion about this?

You've outlined the pessimistic case.

Priya has qualifications in biotechnology. She currently spends her time doing work that sounds quite repetitive.

If AI tools can help accelerate that work, is there a more optimistic scenario where she gets to do different, related work that isn't automatable?

(I personally really hope the pessimistic case isn't what happens here, and in so many other similar situations. I understand and share your concern!)

[rg111]

In my experience with Indians, in my opinion, they, more than any other populace value brands and labels.

So, in a scenario where LLM automates her job, she will be unemployed along with 10 with the same job as her, and the "creative" job will go to someone who did her degree/s from an IIT.

This is another fallacy when it comes to AI-replacements of jobs.

AI will do the menial, repeating job and only the interesting, creative, hard jobs will be left for humans. What's the twist is that you WON'T be the human with that job.

You will be unemployed or in a UBI or your parents' basement eating Ramen, and that job will be done by an MIT gold medalist or a Math Olympiad medalist.

[benatkin]

> You will be unemployed or in a UBI or your parents' basement eating Ramen, and that job will be done by an MIT gold medalist or a Math Olympiad medalist.

Along these lines I recommend the book The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies.

[benatkin]

He has that covered IMO. He talks at length about how he's not confident about his own career in the long run. So while he starts off talking about the AI doing one person's job, he makes it clear that he doesn't just think that about entry level workers.

[simonw]

He talked about his own fears: I want to hear Priya's opinion.

[876978095789789]

> He talked about his own fears: I want to hear Priya's opinion.

Why? Either he's right about GPT or he's wrong, and if he's right (which I think he is) and she disagrees, then she's probably just in denial, like so many HNers who aren't worried about their job, let alone worried about protecting themselves from the massive societal disruption this tech is likely to usher in.

[simonw]

It feels like he's using her as a rhetorical device: telling her life story to add emotional weight to his own opinion.

I think his position on this would be a lot more credible if he presented her own opinions.

[benatkin]

The way I understood it, this is an entry level employee that even before GPT-4 could easily be replaced by another human, perhaps by paying a bit more if this type of employee is difficult to find. So that's why her mobility within the company isn't addressed much.

I'm still interested to hear her opinion as well but the point in the article would still be made, because if for some reason she had more mobility at the company, I could just imagine another scenario where the employee didn't.

The author leaves it open as to what she might to next, but makes it clear that at a minimum it would be a huge disappointment to be laid off due to AI after having gotten this job after all her efforts.