[keeda]

If you look closer into history -- or ask your favorite AI to summarize ;-) -- about what new jobs were created when existing jobs were replaced by automation, the answer is broadly the same every time: the newer jobs required higher-level a) cognitive, b) technical or c) social skills.

That is it. There is no other dimension to upskill along. (Would actually be relieved if someone can find counter-examples!)

LLMs are good at all three. And improving extremely rapidly.

This time is different.

[qsera]

LLM's are just a better search tool. Nothing more.

[generallyjosh]

You say this as though it's a pithy point.

Might as well say humans are just a better search tool - it's true in the exact same sense you're using.

All humans do is absorb information, then search through our memories and apply that information in relevant contexts to affect the world

[qsera]

> pithy point.

Not really, because I do think all knowledge can be obtained by searching true randomness.

[azan_]

You keep repeating it, but it’s obviously wrong in practice. I guess you can make an argument that sending WhatsApp message or generating video is just a search job but that’s not a great argument for why humans wouldn’t get replaced - it doesn’t matter if LLMs can be reduced to search tools, but if their output is good enough approximation of human worker output. If it is then it has a chance to replace human, even if you call it glorified search tool.

[qsera]

Yes, a better search tool will automate a lot of currently employed manual search jobs.

[azan_]

Surely you must realise that calling things like programming or different types of office jobs (which are almost replaceable even today) "manual search jobs" is absurd?

[qsera]

I didn't name any jobs.