• fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    41% execs think that a huge amount of class power will go from workers in general to AI specialists (and probally the companies they make or that hire them).

    I personally can’t wait for a lot these businesses that bet on the wrong people to replace turn around and form new competition but with this new tech filling in the gaps of middle management, hr, execs, etc.

    I mean its fucking meme, but an AI assisted workplace democracy seems alright to me on paper (the devils in details).

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Lets try it. I am willing to start a worker coop headed by votes and an AI. Fuck it.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Can’t wait for AI to replace all those useless execs and CEOs. It’s not like they even do much anyways, except fondling their stocks. They could probably be automated by a markov chain

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If they could replace project managers that would be nice. In theory it is an important job, but in practice it’s just done by someone’s mate who was most productive when they don’t actually turn up.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Paranoia RPG has a very realistic way of determining who gets to be the leader of a group. First, you pick who’ll do what kind of job (electronics, brute force, etc). Whoever didn’t get picked becomes the leader, as that person is too dumb to do anything useful.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes that’s quite a funny and satirical way of doing it but it’s probably not actually the best way in real life.

          I think Boeing have proven this quite nicely for everyone, the company was much better off when they had actual engineers in charge. When they got corporate paper pushes everything went downhill.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Don’t get a job in government contracting. Pretty much I do the work and around 5 people have suggestions. None of whom I can tell to fuck off directly.

      Submit the drawing. Get asked to make a change to align with a spec. Point out that we took exception to the spec during bid. Get asked to make the change anyway. Make the change. Get asked to make another change by someone higher up the chain of five. Point out change will add delays and cost. Told to do it anyway. Make the next change…

      Meanwhile every social scientist “we don’t know what is causing cost disease”

  • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    People here keep belittling AI. You’re all wrong, at least when considering the long run… We can’t beat it. We need to outlaw it.

    Train it to replace CEO’s.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nah, I disagree on both counts.

      We can’t beat it. We need to outlaw it.

      Is the intent here to preserve jobs even if it’s less productive? That’s solving the wrong problem. Instead of banning it, we should be adapting to it. If AI is more efficient than people, the jobs people take should change.

      I think there’s a solid case that if something would devolve into rent-seeking because competition is unproductive, it should be provided as a public service. Do you need a job if all of your basic needs are met by AI? At that point, any work you do would be optional, so people would follow their passions instead of working to make ends meet (see: Star Trek universe).

      Think of it like Basic Income, but instead of cash, you’d get services at-cost. I think there’s room for non-profits (or maybe the government) to provide these AI-services at-cost.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      “Smash the looms” is the wrong idea.

      “Eat the rich” might have some merit though.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, don’t smash the looms, seize them. The ability to make labor easier and more efficient is a positive if we don’t allow it to be a means to impoverish the workers

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Outlawing it is a very dangerous aim, because outlawing it completely will enable other countries to out-compete us, and a outlawing it completely is right next to “outlaw it for normal people, but allow companies to exploit it for profit” on the dart board of possibilities.

      Better path all around is “allow everyone to use AI and establish strong social safety nets and move towards enabling people to work less”.

      • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Haven’t I been hearing that since the rise of computing and the internet? And it’s probably been around even longer. Seems like this sort of stuff only gets going when a lot of workers start putting up a fight.

        But hey, maybe 41% jobs lost might be the tipping point. Because people aren’t just gonna sit on the sidewalk and starve.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s Schrödinger’s AI. It is both useless and will replace everyone. Depending on the agenda the particular person is trying to push.

      We need to outlaw it.
      Train it to replace CEO’s.

      Oh, there it goes again.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I know it’s getting boring. I am tried of people telling me how chatgpt and friends are toys that just spit back website data and in the same comment telling me how they are basically angry gods ready to end the human race.

        Fucking make up your mind!

  • EndHD@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    If Gartner comes out with a decent AI model, you could replace over half of your CIOs, CISOs, CTOs, etc. Most of them lack any real leadership qualities and simply parrot what they’re told/what they’ve read. They’re their through nepotism.

    Also, most of them use AI as a crutch, so that’s all they know. Meanwhile, the rest of us use it as a tool (what it’s meant to be).

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’ll reduce the workforce from well-remunerated professionals who perform tasks to a larger number of disposable minimum-wage labourers who clean up botshit.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Pretty sure the entire Republican party and the ruling class they serve just orgasmed at that thought.

    • Punk_face@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Same. I welcome our AI overlords as long as that means I can just stay at home and fully embrace my autism by not giving a fuck about the workforce while studying all of the thousands of subjects I enjoy learning about.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The autism is not required. No one cares about their jobs, especially people who work in jobs where “everyone is a family”. People care about those jobs the least.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        As soon as we’ve managed to make a computer that can simulate an entire brain in real time. Who knows how many decades or even centuries will that take.

        • mindlight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          No. Middle management is a lot of repeating tasks that an AI could do. The thing is that were not talking about replacing all middle management, we’re talking about giving 10% of the managers the tools to run 90% of the repetitive, tedious and boring tasks.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          To replace a corporate executive? No, I don’t think so. We already have algorithms more than capable of replacing CEOs. There is nothing that challenging in what they do…

          • bstix@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The challenge is to not do whatever the optimal algorithm says. If they simply did what an algorithm says, it would be very easy for competitors to predict.

            • BallsandBayonets@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              The challenge comes in being a scapegoat for when things go wrong (albeit a goat with a golden parachute) and a hype man for when things go right.

              But as others have said AI won’t replace executives because it’s executives making the decisions to use AI, and no one with power will ever choose an option that reduces their own money.

            • mindlight@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You make it sound like corporations invent a new revolutionary wheel each quarter. They don’t.

              What fantastic new beverage have Coca Cola launched the last couple of years? What astonishing new car technology has GM or Volkswagen released lately?

              Most companies are doing what they’ve always have done and guarding their market share. Now and then some small competitor with something revolutionizing pops up and either starts eating market share it gets aquired by one the bigger ones.

              So between a competition popping up or one of your engineers coming up with a lucky accident, all you do is to manage the business as you always do.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    If it isn’t yet, AI will be calling the shots on the actual money owners (those big investment companies like Blackrock). Invest here, invest there, demand more from elsewhere. Said AI will then dictate who should be appointed CEO, director, etc, because it will be asked to name “a human” and little Timmy McMeritocracy, son of a high up elsewhere, needs his first job, nevermind that putting an AI in his place would be more profitable.

  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    ITT: bunch of people who have no idea what AI even means

    This is kind of like the early days of computers or internet all over again. LLMs is not what educated people mean when they’re talking about AI. ChatGPT is not going to take your jobs, AGI will. Nobody just knows when. Might be next year or it might take 2 decades.