Will AI Replace Most Tech Jobs

[7Wannabe5]

Well, given that LLMs if anthropomorphed are more Ne/Ti or Ti/Ne than Ni/Te or Te/NI, I am going to have to go with daylen's take on this. However, this might also imply that instead of utilizing Perspective towards Effectiveness (or vice-versa) towards Total World Domination, the singularity might look more like an unimaginably complex version of Claude Shannon's Ultimate Machine.

[7Wannabe5]

Well, given that LLMs if anthropomorphed are more Ne/Ti or Ti/Ne than Ni/Te or Te/NI, I am going to have to go with daylen's take on this. However, this might also imply that instead of utilizing Perspective towards Effectiveness (or vice-versa) towards Total World Domination, the singularity might look more like an unimaginably complex version of Claude Shannon's Ultimate Machine.

[daylen]

think fast, think slow, act fast, act slow

shadowing our trail to light the way

language connects, the world is an oyster

[7Wannabe5]

I want to hear you rap that with Doechii.

[Scordatura]

No, though it really depends on your definitions.

These sorts of questions strike me as economics questions masquerading as technical ones. Do humans add value to the field that could be sought after with payment? If yes, they are unlikely to be eliminated. I think humans add economic value to technical domains.

I understand I just answered the question as if you'd asked if ALL technical personnel would be eliminated, which is erroneous of me. But the question seems to lurk at the bottoms of these types of conversations, and I wanted it out of the way.

I think a lot of white-collar jobs that don't require creative thinking will be prone to elimination by AI. Factories were automated a long time ago and many many jobs were eliminated. The same will now happen in the office.

I might be putting words in your mouth, and sorry if that is the case, but modern factories are less automated than the layperson typically believes. Automation has taken the blame for lowering the number of manufacturing jobs in developed countries, but I would make the case economic incentive has done that, combined with policy. The corporations have shipped the labor intensive jobs where there is cheap labor, the automation has typically been used to increase production and to a small degree to increase safety. I work at a large manufacturing corporation, and you may be surprised to find that they have a mix of automation from auto loading for the CNC lasers to engine lathes with absolutely no automation at all. Not even a digital read out. The company I work at is typical in this regard.

New tools very well may eliminate jobs, but typically there is another job as "new tool user". Comparative advantage is your friend in these scenarios.

-scordatura

[Scott 2]

I just finished reading Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI (recommended), and it had some interesting things to say about this exact topic. .

Thanks for the recommendation. This was a good overview of where AI is at, lining up well with what I've found elsewhere. I liked it enough that I've subscribed to the author's substack.

Two points changed what I'll do:

1. Be the human in the loop. He encourages continually running decisions through a frontier model. I've gotten lazy about that and am reconsidering.

2. Use AI as a 1 on 1 tutor. I've done this a bit ad hoc, but will experiment more seriously. I suppose it's a special case of change 1. I read an article from the CEO of Nvidia suggesting the same.


I'm still not sold on AI leveling work performance. I think that finding ignores the longitudinal impact, of top performers adopting strategies like the above. Those who self argument with AI, are going at leave the rest behind, IMO.


I appreciated that the book considers all possible paths around the growth of AI. I still think it's going to plateau soon, but the thought exercise is useful.


I also recognized my own blind spot. I take intelligence for granted. My IQ is a couple standard deviations from normal. There's a point of diminishing returns, where the experienced constraint is not intelligence. How well you communicate. Energy. Charisma.

So when I encounter a deficit, it's typically not where an LLM is helpful. That consideration does support the leveling of work performance theory. It also has the potential to diminish where I might be "special". Good to be aware of the possible bias, and threat, I suppose.


I'm not sure how you convince the average person to take interest in augmenting with AI. In many ways, I'm the target market, and still puzzling it out. I think broader penetration is a long road.

[7Wannabe5]

I continue to be semi-fascinated by AI, but I also find that there is very little in my current lifestyle that would benefit from AI/Automation. Most of my routine and ToDo lists require muscles, mammalian functions, personal creativity based on personal preferences, and/or a degree of Tom Sawyer free-wheeling scheming that creates sneaker-toe-dragging friction in opposition to automation. That said, I still think it's possible that I could find a way to maybe make use of AI at a level up in abstraction or functionality. For example, AI could maybe help create/manage/update/revise/FITB my Routine and my ToDo lists etc., if not the tasks found within these structures.

Also, I could just straightforwardly make inquiry of an AI along the lines of "This afternoon I made cabbage soup, had sex, ran the dishwasher, ignored a text from a possible employer, and read a fun whodunit. How could you assist me with these tasks in the future?"

[daylen]

From a certain perspective, the history of technology and automation is an exponential trend in getting humans out of the way. More teams of fewer humans having more precise command and control of automata wins out eventually in militaristic and economic games.

In slower games, AI and information technology more generally is rapidly becoming the exocortex of humanity. Our limbic systems acting as sources of will to be executed on in ever larger cultural feedback loops.

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

IOW, if I accurately comprehend your post, in just a few more years we will all either be employed as sex slaves to Elon and Crew OR surviving on Field Corn 2 boiled with lye in the caverns. Hard call, but I thought about looking into those cardboard eyes, shuddered, and started carving a prison tattoo style regional spelunking map into the flesh of my inner left thigh.

[daylen]

I suspect it will get a whole lot weirder than that once we start mind melding in a synthetic orgy approaching timeless, oneness near the edges of our universe.

[7Wannabe5]

This kind of reminds me of a conversation I once had with a highly intelligent young man whose take was that it was a waste of life-energy to strive for happiness when it's much easier to simply achieve happiness through the purchase of very good lab-to-street drugs. I'm stuck at "Yes, but....."

[daylen]

Well, in the case of doing drugs, just that limbic system is affected. Through the exocortex, all limbic systems become more in sync with each other. One person's happiness becomes everyone's happiness; one person's sadness becomes everyone's sadness; etc. for all emotions. Like how cells in the body can feel each other's stress through gap junctions. Allowing humanity, and perhaps even all ecology, to act more body-like at the scale of the planet.

[jacob]

@daylen - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellstrom%27s_Hive

[daylen]

@jacob It is a whole lot easier to imagine dystopia than near utopias. Dystopian fiction sells better and further develops our collective fear of change. Why not a hive of dividuals that retain individuality? Space warfare might force our hand here one way or another.

[7Wannabe5]

all limbic systems become more in sync with each other. One person's happiness becomes everyone's happiness; one person's sadness becomes everyone's sadness; etc. for all emotions.

Well, this is already the function of Fe. The difficulty isn't to some extent experiencing/sharing the emotions of other humans in one's presence (or thru the means of art, etc.) The problem is what to do about the situation. I mean, one reason why "Put on your own oxygen mask " is good first order (not entire practice!) practice is that theoretically you should have a better grip/insight on how to improve your own situation in alignment with your own preferences, so it's a more efficient first-order approach to maximizing overall happiness. OTOH, the extent to which theoretically maximizing your own happiness into the future is more efficient than taking action to improve the happiness of other humans in the moment is much more debatable and complex. For overly simple example, overall human happiness likely improved by spending $3 to feed hungry child than by putting another $3 in your $3,000,000 investment account or feeding your chubby self another $3 worth of plum napoleon. Recently I tried to search for a video game that provided charitable benefit, but I couldn't find one. I was thinking about the Rice Game website, but wondering if there was now something more complex. Like some small percentage of your earnings from building a virtual business empire could go to non-profit of your choice and somehow the results of this would be reflected in game play. I also keep imagining ways in which ERE could be made to contribute to non-profit benefiting humans currently earning/spending much less than 1 Jacob/year in from the get-go balance with investment towards ones own FI. I know it's just somewhat towards mental gymnastics, but I think Fe types (including me with my bloated tertiary Fe) would be more motivated by some such approach. Otherwise, it's like "Waaah, poor me, I have to work so hard surrounded by idiots to afford my car, how can I possibly feel more compassion for any other human in the moment more than poor, poor, future me."

[daylen]

Well, this is already the function of Fe... OTOH, the extent to which theoretically maximizing your own happiness into the future is more efficient than taking action to improve the happiness of other humans in the moment is much more debatable and complex.

Agreed. That is partially why any approach to the meta crisis must involve a slow game of empathy that extends into and influences distant futures. Akin to hormonal regulation of the body.

[7Wannabe5]

That is partially why any approach to the meta crisis must involve a slow game of empathy that extends into and influences distant futures. Akin to hormonal regulation of the body.

Yes, very well put.

Obviously, a good deal of the difficulty for those of us living in affluent realms is that we are frequently having to bolster our boundaries in relationship to those who emit emotive bluster or sullen whine due to self-inflicted or basic human predicament misery over which we have little control. For example, I accept and empathize with the reality that one of my grouchy old partners might be happier if he could supplement his polyamorous circle with somebody resembling a 22 year old Pamela Anderson, but I choose not to afford more than a minimal outlay of compassionately directed life-energy towards rectification of that particular wrinkle in his universe.

OTOH, I do endeavor to restrict my own lifestyle spending to 1 jacob PPP due to compassion felt for child in nearish future Pakistan smothering on day wet bulb temperature exceeds human survival limit, while empathizing with those who are not quite ready to restrict their spending to this level for variety of reasons, inclusive of fact that they may be currently taking on more direct responsibility for others or engaged in needful work in the moment or in recovery from past traumas or not yet at appropriate level of developmental cognition, etc. etc. etc.

[zbigi]

This kind of reminds me of a conversation I once had with a highly intelligent young man whose take was that it was a waste of life-energy to strive for happiness when it's much easier to simply achieve happiness through the purchase of very good lab-to-street drugs. I'm stuck at "Yes, but....."

My answer would rather be: Is it really possible to achieve long-term happiness via drugs? If that's the case, where are examples of such people?

[7Wannabe5]

My answer would rather be: Is it really possible to achieve long-term happiness via drugs? If that's the case, where are examples of such people?

Valid, but this would naturally lead to :Is it really possible to achieve long-term happiness via FITB? Studies have shown that most of the variation in long-term base happiness levels in humans is genetic/innate. It seems to me that the baseline happiest humans are those whose inner-child is innately locked in at around Second Grade contented/conformist functioning, maybe ESFJ. It would be difficult for an INTJ to achieve/maintain that level of baseline happiness, because the inner-child of an INTJ is more towards a Serious 10 Year Old (the adult among the children), and it would be difficult for an ENTP to achieve/maintain that level of baseline happiness, because inner child is more towards being a climb and crash 3 Year Old. Generally, most rational and idealist types can only become more baseline content through practices/substance/affiliations that also make them stupider (functionally more S than N). So, we have to balance Interested/Contented.

The primary reason why I currently doubt electronic entertainment can do much better than chemical substances is that neither engages muscularity or full repertoire of sensory/nervous/glandular system, and over even the medium run your body know when you are cheating like that. This is also why hiking in the woods is better than running on a treadmill. You are working your large muscles towards stupid animal contentment, but your mind is also taking an interest in the more complex and risk-laden environment through which you are moving. Dancing with another human also provides a level that is more interesting, and this is why electronic entertainment that is multi-player would also be somewhat more engaging and enduring in providing happiness, but still (as of yet) the sensory/muscular/glandular repertoire would be lacking and the risk/reward potential towards the artificial. For simple example, you will never really be able to pleasurably relieve your body of urine into virtual environment like you can on a hike in the woods (or in the entirely forgettable bathroom at your chain gym, if you prefer an efficient, boring, predictable meat space life.)

[jacob]

The primary reason why I currently doubt electronic entertainment can do much better than chemical substances is that neither engages muscularity or full repertoire of sensory/nervous/glandular system, and over even the medium run your body know when you are cheating like that. This is also why hiking in the woods is better than running on a treadmill. You are working your large muscles towards stupid animal contentment, but your mind is also taking an interest in the more complex and risk-laden environment through which you are moving. Dancing with another human also provides a level that is more interesting, and this is why electronic entertainment that is multi-player would also be somewhat more engaging and enduring in providing happiness, but still (as of yet) the sensory/muscular/glandular repertoire would be lacking and the risk/reward potential towards the artificial. For simple example, you will never really be able to pleasurably relieve your body of urine into virtual environment like you can on a hike in the woods (or in the entirely forgettable bathroom at your chain gym, if you prefer an efficient, boring, predictable meat space life.)

Well, in that case, you just have to take it on faith that engagement is very much and sometimes literally in the eye of the beholder and that it varies a lot from person to person. One man's poison is another man's medicine.

We might also be talking apples and oranges when it comes to "electronic entertainment". Here's a video of someone with almost the same setup as I have ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r89ws1TjmFo ) playing the same sim I do. I notice quite a bit of animated body activation here. I'd say dogfighting in your living room is using as many muscles and burns as many calories as going for a walk among some trees. Note that that is a video of someone who has experience in the real jet. It's apparently convincing enough that he occasionally engages in g-force breathing even though he obviously doesn't need to.

"Richie's plank experience" demonstrates just how convincing it can be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M92kfnpg-k

It's difficult (impossible) to convey the feeling of engagement by looking at someone else engaging. The only fair comparison would be either try it yourself(*) or compare this video to another video of a someone going on a hike or someone else dancing instead of hiking or dancing yourself. The 2D video doesn't do justice to the 3D immersion. It's also hard to convey just how intense, stimulating, heart rate increasing, and palm-sweat inducing dogfighting is compared to e.g. just putting on the headset and having a passive "passenger"-type experience. In order to have the experience one needs to learn how to do it. The stick and throttle each have multiple buttons and hats on them and dogfighting has been compared to flying while playing a piccolo in each hand. There's so much going on at the same time that one is mentally zonked after a "barely survived" fight or landing.

I find my mind taking an interest in the hundreds of pages of technical manuals required to deal with the complex avionics of these modern planes. Whereas walking through the woods, my mind stops caring beyond recognizing the difference between leaves, branches, and tree roots---mostly so as not to walk into them. The greatest risk when I go hiking is stumbling over a tree root or slipping on an icy area. The greatest risk in VR is falling out of my chair. Neither happen in practice, but I suppose the consequences are comparable.

(*) Even then, the experience will be subjective. Walking through the woods, I will not have the same experience as a biologist or an ecologist who just see so many more things (and thus engage their brain more) than I do. Likewise, if I put someone who is barely interested in chess in front of a chessboard, they think about two or three moves, whereas an amateur will see dozens of moves with moves behind moves, etc. Ditto the chessmaster, whose depth of perception is to the amateur what the amateur's is to the noob's.

Of course, my preferences explain why I personally fail to appreciate some people's post-collapse dreams of replacing current entertainment/meaning with festivals and participatory song and dance or rolling around in the grass. I find those activities insipid AF(**)---indeed I prefer to get drunk in order to "get stupid enough" to tolerate them better when I have to---but that's just me... and some percentage of the population.

(**) Probably way too much Te.