[huitzitziltzin]

More than a year into ChatGPT and… unemployment is at historic lows.

I don’t remotely see the present generation of LLMs as being “labor replacing tools.” I’m aware of empirical work which shows them to be useful complements to human judgment, not substitutes for the same. I’m also aware of one study showing (iirc) less work for illustrators on an online job board. That latter case is the only case im aware of where workers have been replaced though if you have citations to actual empirical evidence for job losses please comment!

An alternative theory: Part of what AI CEO’s are doing is marketing their products. If you want to get investors and customers to pay your very expensive compute bill you’d better sell your product. You can sell your product by claiming it can replace workers. That doesn’t mean it can do it. If the current generation of LLMs can replace workers, that is not obvious.

Perhaps some future generation might be, but that will require something fundamentally different than what’s currently available. (And no I don’t think “more data” is enough.)

[aatd86]

I'm always wondering when people speak about (un)employment. Like ok non-farm payroll numbers may look good but what kind of jobs, for what kind of pay?

Logically, employment may increase while people's standard of living may get worse at the same time?

Is there somewhere more specific data?

Other than that, I think I remember an article claiming that the introduction of thr personnal computers led companies to be able to generate the same revenue with less people. Like it used to be 8 employee per million USD and it got to 5. Then again, depends of the size of the average enterprise and the market size (which increases with population increase)

[FirmwareBurner]

>Logically, employment may increase while people's standard of living may get worde at the same time?

Yes it can and yes it is. I'm also baffled by people keep pointing out low unemployment like it's the be all end all of all arguments for economic prosperity.

Obviously sky high unemployment like in the great depression isn't great either but just because people are forced to accept any one of the abundant gig economy jobs, no matter how shitty, or even more than one job, due to the high CoL and low welfare, it definitely reduces unemployment numbers on paper, but is that ideal?

Maybe some jobs are so shit that people would rather bum around on minimum welfare than get dirty, tired and aching bodies just to only to make peanuts over welfare.

Maybe the median inflation adjusted take home wage of the employed person after subtracting essentials like rent, utilities, bills and food, would be a better metric to measure economic prosperity of the working class than collectively clapping at record low unemployment numbers.

[alexwhb]

So true. And unemployment doesn’t take into account disenfranchised workers, which is significantly higher than it has been in recent history.

[xnx]

What's the measure of disenfranchised workers? I couldn't find any good source.

[alexwhb]

I believe the technical economic term is “discouraged workers”. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

This is a useful resource on aspects not included in the unemployment metric: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-un....

[xnx]

Ah, thank you. Found some useful links here: https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#discouraged

Seems like this measure of discouraged workers is down over the past 10 years: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026645

[salawat]

That would be the basis measurement of the population of working age people not requesting and or not eligible for unemployment benefits, champ.

[impossiblefork]

Unemployment mostly has to do with matching and coordination problems.

AI or increases in labour supply doesn't typically result in reduced unemployment, rather it acts to push down wages. An increase in labour supply could even lead to people bidding over each other with time, so that the result is that people work more rather than less.

[givemeethekeys]

Here are a few jobs that I'm aware of, which are already well on their way out:

- Language translators.

- Video annotation, summary, transcription.

- Voiceover artists.

- Graphic designers.

- Warehouse inventory work.

- Personal tutors.

- Junior software engineers.

There will still be openings for these roles in the future, just as there are still openings for Personal Assistants (secretaries, which were once as abundant as teachers and truck drivers), and maybe even the occasional Draftsman.

[bradknowles]

For all of these jobs, AI systems may be able to solve the easy 80% of the lowest level tasks, they can't solve the hard 20%, and that's where humans will prevail. But AI plus humans will do even better.

I think what's going to happen is that AI will enable these kinds of jobs to be done much more often and in many more situations where they could not be feasibly be performed before, and the actual human job losses will be minimal in these areas.

At least for the near future, and it's hard to predict what may happen ten or twenty years from now.

[alexwhb]

So true. And when autonomous driving finally get to the safety levels where society accepts it… that will be a shocking number of jobs taken. Also Amazon is going to start selling their self checkout technology to stores… so most cashiers will definitely be out of work in the next decade if not sooner.

[bradknowles]

What we know of the current Amazon technology is bad enough that Amazon keeps closing stores. It's just not profitable enough to keep them open.

Now, maybe what they're thinking is that these stores were just a training exercise and known to be unprofitable from Day One, and now those training exercises are over so they can start shutting them down. Dunno -- I have no inside information on this.

But I wouldn't be looking to Amazon to solve all these problems for all the retailers. At least, not until they can come out with better technology.

[alexwhb]

Fair point, but then again… self checkout sucks!! And it’s everywhere. point being maybe it doesn’t have to be very good if it saves companies money. I hope that I’m wrong, but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised

[bradknowles]

Self checkout as we know it today sucks. Imagine if you could do it based on RFID tags and just walk past with everything still in your cart. Of course, you'd have to make sure that you don't get double billed for anything, and you don't get billed for anything that someone else has nearby.

But if you got properly billed for only the things in your own cart, and that RFID scanning process was quick and easy, then I'm not sure it would suck so bad.

[alexwhb]

Totally agree. I’d actually prefer this type of system if it’s in fact faster than checkout with a cashier. Especially now that it seems many markets have dramatically cut down on staff and it can take shocking amounts of time to checkout.

[logiduck]

It seems like personal tutors will actually be in higher demand if AI learning takes over. I mean kids have had an ever increasing array of ways to learn and supplement materials over the past 20-30 years and if anything education has been getting worse in recent years with many benchmarks for education reaching decades low levels.