An important element of economics that this ignores: if the maximal substitution of human labor with generative machine learning is achieved… who is going to fucking buy or invest in anything? Wages enable consumption. Kill wages == kill consumption == kill your profit margin. Everything ultimately rolls back to the consumer in market economics.
I get this sinking feeling that they are planning for the worst possible version of a post money world
Underclasses as feedstock for the AI farmers compost needs?
Removed by mod
I don’t think it ignores it, rather the argument is precisely that that maximal substition won’t and can’t happen.
The difference is a tractor did the same job better than a horse.
AI does not do jack fucking shit better than a human.
Wrong! LLMs produce useless garbage MUCH faster and for FAR higher costs than a human ever could, all while making middle management insanely horny.
Me, looking at all the horse furries: “I KNEW IT”
deleted by creator
[citation needed]
Neigh
“Why AI will not replace labour”
Looks inside
Baseless assertion that some tasks always require humans input
Every fucking time.
Baseless assertion that some tasks always require humans input
It’s really not that; it’s about how spending and employment patterns have changed historically in response to increased automation.
Historical employment patterns which depend on labour being a smaller but irreplaceable slice of a larger pie. 0% of an economy a billion times the current size is still 0$
