752
C:/users/website/file.html (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'm not sure if this is meant to be a refutation, so apologies if I misinterpreted. But cut jobs to buy hardware sounds to me like jobs lost due to AI, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    AI isn't replacing those jobs. Those jobs were lost to fund speculation. AI isn't doing their jobs, their former coworkers are doing more work. It's an important distinction. Those salaries are funding things that don't exist yet, so the workers couldn't have been replaced by them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It feels like a distinction no one is strictly trying to make in this thread, to me. The OP picture says AI has made us unemployed. Commenter at top of chain says it has, and provided a source to show job loss due to AI.

    I mean, I just don't think the people who have lost their jobs due to AI care much if it was because the AI directly replaced them or just made their former coworker more efficient.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    It matters very much whenever discussing AI, as to whether AI is actually performing the jobs of workers who lost their jobs. There's a very powerful marketing machine at work which is partially responsible for convincing businesses to make these speculative moves. Speculation and a bubble are killing jobs. "AI" is by and large not replacing workers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent