I have seen CMS systems and asset management products, whose translation and designer teams are now mostly gone, thanks to AI taking care of their work.
How many translation jobs, or asset creation jobs are still available?
I also have witness backend teams being reduced, thanks to SaaS and iPaaS cloud products that remove the need of backend development, now one only needs to plug a couple of products, do some AI based integrations in Boomi, Workato, n8n,... create a frontend with Vercel's v0 and be done with it.
I am in no ilusion that it will come for me as well, and better slide into some other alternative skill set, at least I am closer to retirement, than hunting for my first job.
Kind of, have you actually fully read the article?
Buried there down to the bottom of the Fortune article,
> Just a week after his comments, however, IBM announced it would cut thousands of workers by the end of the year as it shifts focus to high-growth software and AI areas. A company spokesperson told Fortune at the time that the round of layoffs would impact a relatively low single-digit percentage of the company’s global workforce, and when combined with new hiring, would leave IBM’s U.S. headcount roughly flat.
> never understood why his stuff is well-regarded here.
He appealed to proponents of basic income.
Years ago, forward thinking identified the trend of decreasing ipv4 availability. Pundits built html clocks to countdown to the depletion of ARINs IPV4 pool, prominently warning of an epoch after which no business could function without fully implementing ipv6. The countdown clocks looked scary and the situation sounded believable, inevitable even, we all wanted to hear, but something would finally force the boss to upgrade.
But hubris blinded these pundits to the possibility that a few large businesses implementing IPv6 and reselling their v4 allotments would indefinitely sustain ipv4 as the internet’s source of truth. With a simple workaround, the old model held.
Like the IPv6 pundits of old, Andrew Wang has correctly identified a trend in AI, but he projects it will erase all jobs and require redefinition of social contract. This is a wild claim, yet proponents of “basic income” are excited to hear anything that bolsters the ideas they prefer to believe.
But I suspect in this case too that the old model will adapt, just as it did with every other increase in human office productivity.
A large part of the original deep blue win was smoke and mirrors - humans researched how it should play and hardcoded it in, humans researched the specific openings it should play based on what they decided would work best and hardcoded them in, humans tweaked it / changed its programming mid-match to fix bugs and get better results, the moves it decided on its own were based on pure brute force analysis of positions, no "thought" involved, humans waged psychological warfare against Kasparov to get him to play worse, just massive smoke and mirrors. And yet the public knew none of the details and just gobbled up the hype / result as "computer smart, ai beats human".
Now we've got a new system of smoke and mirrors and hype and people that don't understand what's actually happening under the hood, don't actually understand the technical details of what's involved, just fully buying into the smoke and mirrors put up by people making billions of dollars by convincing people of the hype.
> Now we've got a new system of smoke and mirrors and hype and people that don't understand what's actually happening under the hood, don't actually understand the technical details of what's involved
And that's just the developers who make the models! :P
> just fully buying into the smoke and mirrors put up by people making billions of dollars by convincing people of the hype.
I can't help but notice how this smoke and these mirrors are solving an increasing fraction of my side-projects for me.
Hint: Make sure the people giving you the efficiency improvement numbers don't have a vested interest in giving you good numbers. If so, you can not trust the numbers.
Reminds me of my last job where the team that pushed React Native into the codebase were the ones providing the metrics for "how well" React Native was going. Ain't no chance they'd ever provide bad numbers.
>> As a relavant example, try using FreeType in your C/C++ project, make sure your solution compiles on Linxu, and Mac, and Windows (and ideally other platforms)
You know, as a (prickly) analogy, whatever your take on covid was, half the population vehemently disagreed with your take. No matter which side was more "correct", either way, a huge percentage of the population can be, and often is, completely deluded on even fairly understandable topics.
When it comes to something as complex as AI, what are the odds that a random person is going to have any sort of good/informed take on it? Especially someone like this, who's a non-technical angel investor? Their entire job is hyping things up to raise money / get paydays. They actually list on their resume various "viral articles/tweets" that they made that got attention / raised money. Could this guy remotely explain, technically, how an LLM works under the hood? I highly doubt it. His credentials are not building AI, not technical knowledge, but hyping up companies that use AI.
Well, at least he gives 1-5 year time frames for all his grand claims, so when they don't actually happen he'll be quickly proven wrong. But of course, it's the internet, and nothing will ever come from somebody making grand claims and then being completely proven wrong, there will be no follow up, no self reflection, no retraction, no long-term credibility hit, just on to hyping up the next thing after getting his payday.
It feels oddly freeing to be seeing headlines like this every other day on HN and not caring in the slightest. The titles are just amalgamations of random words to me, like 'Claude Super Zen Deep 4.0' or 'Grok Hyper 6.2 Mega'. They come and go. A month from now it'll be new headlines with new numbers and new words. And I still won't care. Not in the rat race, just using whatever chatgpt gives me for free. Just coding how I've always coded.
Sign of time, this resembles time when we were moving ahead with processors speed. Two y.o. computer was obsolete (or, in those times, it required an upgrade, as it was possible...).
But hey, they raised rates numerous times to pay for all those nonexistent new features. I cancelled my membership a week or two ago after yet another rate hike.
Ok, let me guess, without looking at the article .... is it a "pilot" that's rolled out to a small number of people, for a limited period of time, and its success is judged by surveying those people on whether they were happy to get free money? I bet it was.
> Ireland rolled out a permanent basic income scheme for the arts on Tuesday, pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week following a trial that participants said eased financial strain and allowed them to spend more time on projects.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle. O'Donovan said he would like to increase the number of recipients over time.
> Over 8,000 applicants applied for the 2,000 places in the pilot scheme.
> A report on the trial found it lowered the likelihood of artists experiencing enforced deprivation, and reduced their levels of anxiety and reliance on supplementary income.
> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through [...] and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments,
Which sounds quite a bit like "we spent more on one type of welfare so we ended up spending less on a different type of welfare." Which, okay, good, but I don't think you can say you "recouped" anything.
If you want to criticize my post, it would be best to actually provide the data you're being snarky about. You didn't need any money to start that did you? Why suddenly do you need it now? What a crappy and bad faith attitude.
> it would be best to actually provide the data you're being snarky about.
You mean the study you're complaining about without having read? ... The one that's not even a Google search away, because it's literally linked on the page you're already on?
Not being snarky, just really surprised at the expectation of being spoonfed data that's already right in front of you, and the apparent willingness to complain about things that you haven't even glanced at.
Many people worked hard to do this study. I believe if you want to complain about their methodology then you should probably take the time to actually look at what it was first. Is that snark? Is it snark to ask for payment when people ask you to do research (however basic) for them?
Yes, this is the problem. They tout this new latest and greatest extension that fixes and simplifies a lot, yet you go look up the extension on vulkan.gpuinfo.org and see ... currently 0.3% of all devices support it. Which means you can't in any way use it. So you wait 5 years, and now maybe 20% of devices support it. Then you wait another 5 years, and maybe 75% of devices support it. And maybe you can get away with limiting your code to running on 75% of devices. Or, you wait another 5 years to get into the 90s.
> look up the extension on vulkan.gpuinfo.org and see ... currently 0.3% of all devices support it.
Afaik the extension isn't even finalized yet and they are pre-releasing it to gather feedback.
And you can't use gpuinfo for assessing how widely available something is or isn't. The stats contain reports from old drivers too so the numbers you see are no indication of hardware support.
To assess how widely supported something is, you need to look at gpuinfo, sort by date or driver version and cross reference something like steam hardware survey.
Ok cool, so in a single year when this hasn't happened, we know never to listen to any grand claims he makes ever again.
reply