> make the balance between capital and labor even more uneven.
I think it's interesting to note that as opens source models evolve and proliferate, the capital required for a lot of ventures goes down - which levels the playing field.
When I can talk to one agent-with-a-CAD-integration and have it design a gadget for me and ship the design off to a 3D printer and then have another agent write the code to run on the gadget, I'll be able to build entire ventures that would require VC funding and a team now.
When intellectual capital is democratized, financial capital looses just a bit of power...
What value do you bring to the venture, though? What makes your venture more likely to succeed than anybody else's, if the barrier is that low? I mean, I'll tell you: if anyone can spend $100 to design the same new gadget, the winner is going to be whoever can spend a million in production (to get economy of scale) and marketing. Currently, financial capital needs your brain, so you can leverage that. But if they can use a brain in the cloud instead, they're going to do just that. Sure, you can use it and design anything you can imagine, but nobody is going to pay you for it unless you, yourself, bring some irreplaceable value to the table.
Since everyone has AI, then it stands that humans still make the difference. That is why I don't think companies will be able to automate software dev too much, they would be cutting the one advantage they could have over their competition.
It stands that humans will make the difference if they can do things that the AI cannot. The more capable the AI gets, however, the less humans will meet that threshold, and they are the ones that will lose out. Capital, on the other hand, will always make a difference.
At present, if you have financial capital and need intellectual capital you need to find people willing to work for you and pay them a lot of money. With enough progress in AI you can get the intellectual capital from machines instead, for a lot less. What loses value is human intellectual capital. Financial capital just gained a lot of power, it can now substitute for intellectual capital.
Sure, you could pretend this means you'll be able to launch a startup without any employees, and so will everyone. But why wouldn't Sam Altman or whomever just start AI Ycombinator with hundreds of thousands of AI "founders"? Do you really think it would be more "democratic"?
> But why wouldn't Sam Altman or whomever just start AI Ycombinator with hundreds of thousands of AI "founders"? Do you really think it would be more "democratic"?
AI is useful in the same way with Linux
- can run locally
- empowers everyone
- need to bring your own problem
- need to do some of the work yourself
The moral is you need to bring your problem to benefit. The model by itself does not generate much benefits. This means AI benefits are distributed like open source ones.
Those points are true of current AI models, but how sure are you they will remain true as technology evolves?
Maybe you believe that they will always stay true, that there's some ineffable human quality that will never be captured by AI and value creation will always be bottle-necked by humans. That would be nice.
But even if you still need humans in the loop, it's not clear how "democratizing" this would be. It might sound great if in a few years you and everyone else can run an AI on their laptop that is as a good as a great technical co-founder that never sleeps. But note that means that someone who owns a data-center can run the equivalent of the current entire technical staff of Google, Meta, and OpenAI combined. Doesn't sound like a very level playing field.
Think the marginal cost of developing complex software goes down thereby making it affordable to a greater market. There will still be a need for skilled software engineers to understand domains, limitations of AI, and how to harness and curate AI to develop custom apps. Maybe software engineering for the masses. Local small businesses can now maybe afford to take on custom software projects that were before unthinkable.
> There will still be a need for skilled software engineers to understand domains, limitations of AI, and how to harness and curate AI to develop custom apps.
But will there be a need for fewer engineers, though? That's the question. And the competition for those who remain employed would be fierce, way worse than today.
I think it might be useful to look at this as multiple forces to play.
One force is a multiplier of a software engineer’s productivity.
Another force is the pressure of the expectation for constant, unlimited increase in profits. This pressure force the CEOs and managers to look for cheaper alternatives to expensive software engineers, ultimately to eliminate the position and expense. The lie that this is a possibility draws huge investments.
And another force is the infinite number of applications of software, especially well designed, truly useful, software.
I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't admit I use AI daily in my job, and it's indeed a multiplier of my productivity. The tech is really cool and getting better.
I also understand AI is one step closer for the everyday Jane or Joe Doe to do cool and useful stuff which was out of reach before.
What worries me is the capitalist, business-side forces at play, and what they will mean for my job security. Is it selfish? You bet! But if I don't advocate for me, who will?
Jevon's Paradox says that you're probably wrong. But I'm worried about the same thing. The moat around human superiority is shrinking fast. And when it's gone, we may get more software, but will we need humans involved?
AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. And no matter how hyped one might be about AI, we're far away from creating an artificial human. As long as that's true, AI is a tool to make humans more effective.
That's fair, but the question was whether AI would destroy or create jobs.
You might speculate about a one-person megacorp where everything is done by AIs that a single person runs.
What I'm saying is that we're very far from this, because the AI is not a human that can make the CEO's needs and desires their own and execute on them independently.
Humans are good at being humans because they've learned to play a complex game, which is to pursue one's needs and desires in a partially adversarial social environment.
This is not at all what AI today is being trained for.
Maybe a different way to look at it, as a sort of intuition pump: If you were that one man company, and you had an AGI that will correctly answer any unambiguously stated question you could ask, at what point would you need to start hiring?
It should be obvious that technology exists for the sake of humans, not the other way around, but I have already seen an argument for firing humans in favour of LLMs since the latter emit less pollution.
LLMs do not have desires, but their existence alters desires of humans, including the ones in charge of businesses.
I agree the latter part is a risk to consider, but I really think getting an AI to replace human jobs on a vast scale will take much more than just training a bit more.
You need to train on a fundamentally different task, which is to be good at the adversarial game of pursuing one's needs and desires in a social environment.
And that doesn't yet take into account that the interface to our lives is largely physical, we need bodies.
I'm seeing us on track to AGI in the sense of building a universal question answering machine, a system that will be able to answer any unambiguously stated question if given enough time and energy.
Stating questions unambiguously gets pretty difficult fast even where it's possible, often it isn't even possible, and getting those answers is just a small part of being a successful human.
PS: Needs and desires are totally orthogonal to AI/AGI. Every animal has them, but many animals don't have high intelligence. Needs and desires are a consequence of our evolutionary history, not our intelligence. AGI does not need to mean an artificial human. Whether to pursue or not pursue that research program is up to us, it's not inevitable.
In the AI age, those who own the problems stand to own the AI benefits. Utility is in the application layer, not the hosting or development of AI models.
this is a better world. we can work a few hours a week and play tennis, golf, and argue politics with our friends and family over some good cheese and wine while the bots do the deployments.
We're already there in terms of productivity. The problem is the inordinate number of people doing nothing useful yet extracting huge amounts. Think most of finance for example.
If it's any consolation, if indeed the extra productivity happens, and kills the number of SWE jobs I don't see why this dynamic shouldn't happen in almost all white collar job across the private sector (government sectors are pretty much protected no matter what happens). There'll be a decreasing demand for lawyers, accountants, analysts, secretaries, HR personnel, designers, marketers etc etc. Even doctors might start feeling this eventually.
no I think more engineers. especially those who can be a jack-of-all-trades. if a software project that takes normally 1 year of customer development can be done in 2 months, then that project is affordable to a wide array of business who would could never fund that kind of project before.
I can see more projects being deployed by smaller businesses, that would otherwise not be able to.
But how will this translate to engineering jobs? Maybe there will be AI tools to automate most of the stuff a small business needs done. "Ah," you may say, "I will build those tools!". Ok. Maybe. How many engineers do you need for that? Will the current engineering job market shrink or expand, and how many non-trash, well paid jobs will there be?
I'm not saying I know for sure how it'll go, but I'm concerned.
By the way, car mechanics (especially independent ones, your average garage mechanic) understand less and less about what's going on inside modern cars. I don't want this to happen to us.
would be similar to solution engineers today. you build solutions using ai. think about all the moving parts to building a complex business app. user experience, data storage, business logic, reporting, etc. etc. the engineer can orchestrate the ai to build the solution and validate its correctness.
I fear even this role will need way fewer people, meaning the employment pool will heavily shrink, and those competing for a job will need to accept lower paychecks.
I get this argument, but it feels we cannot always reason by analogy. Some jumps are qualitatively different. We cannot always claim "this didn't happen before, therefore it won't happen now".
Of course assemblers didn't create fewer programming jobs, nor did compilers or high level languages. However, with "NO CODE" solutions (remember that fad?) there was an attempt at reducing the need for programmers (though not completely taking them out of the equation)... it's just that NO CODE wasn't good enough. What if AI is good enough?
> I'm worried these technologies may take my job away
The way I look at this is that with the release of something like deepseek the possibility of running a model offline and locally to work _for_ you while you are sleeping, doing groceries, spending time with your kids / family is coming closer to a reality.
If AI is able to replace me one day I'll be taking advantage of that way more efficiently than any of my employee(s).
You won't be happy doing a robot's job either, at least not for long.
In the ideal case, we won't be dependent on the unwilling labor of other humans at all. Would you do your current job for free? If not -- if you'd rather do something else with your productive life -- then it seems irrational to defend the status quo.
One thing's for certain: ancient Marxist tropes about labor and capital don't bring any value to the table. Abandon that thinking sooner rather than later; it won't help you navigate what's coming.
That's not historically what's happened though, is it? We've had plenty of opportunities to reduce the human workload through increased efficiency. What usually happens is people demand more - faster deliveries, more content churn; and those of us who are quite happy with what we have are either forced to adapt or get left behind while still working the same hours.
Jevon's paradox really does work for everything, not just in the current way people have used it this last week in terms of GPU demand. People always demand more, and thus, there is an endless amount of work to be done.
We don't have enough because the productivity improvements are not shared with the working class. The wealth gap increases, people work the same. This is historically what has happened and it's what will happen with AI. The next generations will never have the opportunity to retire.
Because billionaires think that you are a horse and that the best course of action is to turn you into glue while they hope AGI lets them live forever.
Billionaires don't think about you at all. That's what nobody seems to get.
We enjoy many luxuries unavailable even to billionaires only a few decades ago. For this trend to continue, the same thing needs to happen in other sectors that happened in (for example) the agricultural sector over the course of the 20th century: replacement of human workers by mass automation and superior organization.
In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is what happens when the value of human labour drops to zero, full stop. If AI becomes better to us at everything, then we will do nothing, we will earn nothing, and we will have nothing that isn't gifted to us. We will have no bargaining power, so we just have to hope the rich and powerful will like us enough to share.
If anything like that had actually happened in the past, you might have a point. When it comes to what happens when the value of human labor drops to zero, my guess is every bit as good as yours.
I say it will be a Good Thing. "Work" is what you call whatever you're doing when you'd rather be doing something else.
The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require in order to do that something else you'd rather be doing? Capitalism won't just give them to you. If you do not own land, physical resources or robots, and you can't work, how do you get food? Charity? I'd argue there will need to be a pretty comprehensive redistribution scheme for the people at large to benefit.
What we see through history is that human labour cost goes up and machine cost goes down.
Suppose you want to have your car washed. Hiring someone to do that will most likely give the best result: less physical resources used (soap, water, wear of cloth), less wear and tear on the car surface and less pollution and optionally a better result.
Still the benefit/cost equation is clearly in favor of the machine when doing the math, even when using more resources in the process.
What is lacking in our capitalist economic system is the fact of hiring people to perform services is punished by much higher taxes compared to using a machine, which is often even tax deductible. That way, the machine brings only benefits to the user of the machine (often a more wealthy person), less much to society as a whole. If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy.
I think it's interesting to note that as opens source models evolve and proliferate, the capital required for a lot of ventures goes down - which levels the playing field.
When I can talk to one agent-with-a-CAD-integration and have it design a gadget for me and ship the design off to a 3D printer and then have another agent write the code to run on the gadget, I'll be able to build entire ventures that would require VC funding and a team now.
When intellectual capital is democratized, financial capital looses just a bit of power...