And just like that MAGA counties learned to love the AI bomb.

Eh, just mandate that they use closed loops for cooling, and build out nuclear power infrastructure, and problems solved.


As to the labor, I just don't see it eliminating jobs, just shifting how labor is used.

59 minutes ago, Bill said:

Eh, just mandate that they use closed loops for cooling, and build out nuclear power infrastructure, and problems solved.


As to the labor, I just don't see it eliminating jobs, just shifting how labor is used.

Even if it did, that doesn't mean we should artificially restrict its use. Advancements in technology have always caused concern but it's foolish to think you can outrun innovation. History is littered with examples of similar inflection points. Luddites in textiles, buggy whip manufacturers in transportation, ditch diggers in construction, even in more recent times with welders, longshoremen, etc. Obviously it's a problem we need to address, but the answer isn't to resist the technology solely out of concern for lost jobs. If we're that desperate to create/protect jobs, spoons instead of shovels, as the saying goes.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Even if it did, that doesn't mean we should artificially restrict its use. Advancements in technology have always caused concern but it's foolish to think you can outrun innovation. History is littered with examples of similar inflection points. Luddites in textiles, buggy whip manufacturers in transportation, ditch diggers in construction, even in more recent times with welders, longshoremen, etc. Obviously it's a problem we need to address, but the answer isn't to resist the technology solely out of concern for lost jobs. If we're that desperate to create/protect jobs, spoons instead of shovels, as the saying goes.

Yeah it's kind of like how people thought word processors would eliminate typists, but all they did was make every document longer. To me AI just seems like any other system. You'll have the majority of workers "pushing buttons" with AI, while a few will be using their knowledge of whatever it is outside of the AI (the particular business sector, NGO, civil service, etc.) to more effectively use the AI.

Outside of repetitive tasks on an assembly line, I don't see AI driven robotics taking over manual or skilled labor. It's gonna take awhile for robots to pass humans in super fine dexterity.

I think the thing that people aren't clued into yet is just how much foreign interference is getting poured into the domestic counter data center movement. It seems that if there's an asinine idea championed by the fringes, it's the result of a hostile foreign government information campaign.

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

Yeah it's kind of like how people thought word processors would eliminate typists, but all they did was make every document longer. To me AI just seems like any other system. You'll have the majority of workers "pushing buttons" with AI, while a few will be using their knowledge of whatever it is outside of the AI (the particular business sector, NGO, civil service, etc.) to more effectively use the AI.

Outside of repetitive tasks on an assembly line, I don't see AI driven robotics taking over manual or skilled labor. It's gonna take awhile for robots to pass humans in super fine dexterity.

I think the thing that people aren't clued into yet is just how much foreign interference is getting poured into the domestic counter data center movement. It seems that if there's an asinine idea championed by the fringes, it's the result of a hostile foreign government information campaign.

I think you're underselling it just as much as some are overselling it. AI is such a general term, and it kinda bothers me how vague these discussions can get, but at the end of the day the advancements being made in the next two years will definitely eliminate positions in multiple industries. That's just the harsh reality. It's not as dire as some media segments would frame it, but as an example; Claude, specifically Opus, has already proven this in a few key ways that we can discuss at length if needed. Not to even mention Fable, plus whatever else that's in their roadmap yet to be announced.

Robotics is an another tech field entirely, utilizing vastly different forms of AI (again the issue with such broad uses of the term) and will probably be one of the last to bear fruit with what we're seeing from the major players now.

As for data centers, we can always find uses for excess compute if we happen to overestimate demand for one specific application. You can even go back to the nascent stages of crypto mining or protein folding simulations on networked PS3s.

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I think you're underselling it just as much as some are overselling it. AI is such a general term, and it kinda bothers me how vague these discussions can get, but at the end of the day the advancements being made in the next two years will definitely eliminate positions in multiple industries. That's just the harsh reality. It's not as dire as some media segments would frame it, but as an example; Claude, specifically Opus, has already proven this in a few key ways that we can discuss at length if needed. Not to even mention Fable, plus whatever else that's in their roadmap yet to be announced.

Robotics is an another tech field entirely, utilizing vastly different forms of AI (again the issue with such broad uses of the term) and will probably be one of the last to bear fruit with what we're seeing from the major players now.

As for data centers, we can always find uses for excess compute if we happen to overestimate demand for one specific application. You can even go back to the nascent stages of crypto mining or protein folding simulations on networked PS3s.

Nah, I get what you're saying, and I will admit that I'm very purposely trying not to be chicken little about it.

I still think that from a labor standpoint is that while jobs will be eliminated, there will still be other opportunities that will create a labor need to offset those loses.

7 hours ago, Bill said:

I still think that from a labor standpoint is that while jobs will be eliminated, there will still be other opportunities that will create a labor need to offset those loses.

This is what I'm most interested to see. Past technological advances have eliminated jobs but also created new opportunities as labor is freed up. It's certainly been painful, but job market would transition workers to other areas.

It's more difficult for me to see how this job market creative destruction process would play out here. I have faith given past experiences, but can't shake down anxiety nonetheless (especially as I'm now trying to guide the next generation a bit in my role both professionally and personally).

The ultimate question is how long this technological shift is going to take. If it happens too quickly, AI could cannibalize the workforce to a level high enough that demand enters a death spiral (if you don't have workers, you don't have consumers).

Change in the past has been manageable and ultimately good because the pace allowed enough time for the workforce to adapt to new market realities.

What happens if pace of change is so fast that we end up with a massive portion of the workforce the market seems unemployable, a portion that formerly represented significant amounts of consumption in an economy that requires it?

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The ultimate question is how long this technological shift is going to take. If it happens too quickly, AI could cannibalize the workforce to a level high enough that demand enters a death spiral (if you don't have workers, you don't have consumers).

Change in the past has been manageable and ultimately good because the pace allowed enough time for the workforce to adapt to new market realities.

What happens if pace of change is so fast that we end up with a massive portion of the workforce the market seems unemployable, a portion that formerly represented significant amounts of consumption in an economy that requires it?

Do you think Elon Musk was considering universal income for everyone?

All 8 billion people on the planet?

Do you think trump stuttered and mumbled about precious metals and minerals and taking over Greenland and south America so he could share everything evenly with everyone?

Do you think people like Stephan Miller are more concerned about keeping all 8 billion consumers fat and happy or reducing consumption overall?

My biggest concern with AI are the current people driving the car.

14 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Even if it did, that doesn't mean we should artificially restrict its use. Advancements in technology have always caused concern but it's foolish to think you can outrun innovation. History is littered with examples of similar inflection points. Luddites in textiles, buggy whip manufacturers in transportation, ditch diggers in construction, even in more recent times with welders, longshoremen, etc. Obviously it's a problem we need to address, but the answer isn't to resist the technology solely out of concern for lost jobs. If we're that desperate to create/protect jobs, spoons instead of shovels, as the saying goes.

We should tax it though. If I hire an employee, I have to pay that person's benefits, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, and Federal Unemployment (FUTA) tax. I don't need to do that if I have AI do that work instead. In other words we are incentivizing employers to fire people and replace them with AI. It needs to be taxed at an appropriate rate so it isn't cheaper to fire people. I know people are inclined to just let the market do whatever it wants, but f you have a bunch of people out of work, coupled with rising costs and diminishing employment opportunities, it isn't going to be good for anyone. This country is already turning into a banana republic ish hole. The only thing preventing people from revolting is they have too much to lose to start committing violent acts against the government and corporations. When you start having enough people with nothing to lose, the entire country becomes a powder keg. The Andrew Yang approach of UBI is equally retarded. Paying people to sit around and do nothing is just as destructive. People with money in their pocket and nothing at all to do, and no sense of identity/importance/self worth are also dangerous. If we don't regulate AI and protect people's jobs...we are in serious trouble.

This is one of the many reasons I want to leave the country and live somewhere remote. None of this is going to turn out well.

Lynched was way out ahead on AI. Sucking off dudes at the bus station is 100% AI proof.

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

We should tax it though. If I hire an employee, I have to pay that person's benefits, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, and Federal Unemployment (FUTA) tax. I don't need to do that if I have AI do that work instead. In other words we are incentivizing employers to fire people and replace them with AI. It needs to be taxed at an appropriate rate so it isn't cheaper to fire people. I know people are inclined to just let the market do whatever it wants, but f you have a bunch of people out of work, coupled with rising costs and diminishing employment opportunities, it isn't going to be good for anyone. This country is already turning into a banana republic ish hole. The only thing preventing people from revolting is they have too much to lose to start committing violent acts against the government and corporations. When you start having enough people with nothing to lose, the entire country becomes a powder keg. The Andrew Yang approach of UBI is equally retarded. Paying people to sit around and do nothing is just as destructive. People with money in their pocket and nothing at all to do, and no sense of identity/importance/self worth are also dangerous. If we don't regulate AI and protect people's jobs...we are in serious trouble.

This is one of the many reasons I want to leave the country and live somewhere remote. None of this is going to turn out well.

Not sure how we could do that in an objective and quantifiable way. You'd have to have very clear definitions on what is or isn't "AI" which would be almost impossible. What makes this AI any different from the voice to text engine you've probably used on your phone many times? Or the AI that aides in summarizing search results? But why stop at AI? Do we tax the use of the internet by online retailers because brick and mortar stores started closing? Do we tax automation equipment factories that forced out laborers? What about early stage computers that made manual ballistic calculations a thing of the past?

I agree that these things present clear problems with real consequences, but I'm not sure there are any easy answers, aside from figuring out the most pragmatic ways to adapt to the technology, rather than shun it outright.

Also, take any predictions on the percentage of the workforce to be replaced by AI with a grain of salt if it's coming from someone who financially benefits if said prediction comes true. This is where a university researcher would have a far less biased view of what's to come in the next few years compared to someone in the tech industry, especially any of the CEOs like Musk, Altman, Huang, etc.

@Gannan One potential indirect way to tax "AI" is with an escalating surcharge on water usage for data centers. Not sure what the best way would be to differentiate their usage profile from other large facilities in other industries, but it's a resource that's already scarce in some areas so maybe what's good for the goose is good for the gander there.