49
Jamie Dimon Says AI Will Eliminate Jobs, 'It Is What It Is' — But Warns Cutting $150,000 Truck Driving Jobs To $25K A Year Would Bring 'Civil Unrest' (finance.yahoo.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/futurology@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For workers wondering how far artificial intelligence could go, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has a straightforward answer — AI is going to change the job market, whether people are ready for it or not. Some jobs will disappear, others will change and new ones will likely emerge. But Dimon warned that the speed of that transition could matter just as much as the technology itself.

"As a business person, my view is don't put your head in the sand," Dimon said at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January. "It is what it is. We're going to deploy it. Will it eliminate jobs? Yes. Will it change jobs? Yes. Will it add some jobs? Probably."

They spend so much on eliminating jobs and social programs. The government enables this by giving them tax cuts with money obtained by taking food out of the mouths of children? We could never "afford" universal health-insurance, but we could afford to invest in eliminating human workers that just want to put a roof over their head?

Seems like a recipie for guillotines.

But, hey

all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 1 month ago

I have a novel idea. Requalify people whose jobs are automated, redistribute the efficiency gains equitably, and reduce everyone's working time.

Or maybe fuck around, cancel the last bathroom break of whatever Amazon warehouse employees are left instead of using productivity gains to improve working conditions, and find out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    The only jobs that will end are whatever this guy considers work is, not sure how he thinks AI is going to be able to handle the "boozy lunch" component, but pretty sure it's already got "talking gibberish to other over paid idiots" down pat

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

    sadly he’s right

    see how machines ending weaving and cloth making

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    there are still people making cloth by hand, though. They're able to do it because there are others willing to pay a premium for handmade goods or simply because they have their needs met and are thus free to do it without worrying about profit.

    The same logic extends to basically anything, the only thing holding us back from having people do work is that we as a society have decided that it's ok for a few people to exploit everyone else and keep resources out of our hands.
    We more than have the technology to live in what for all intents and purposes is a post-scarcity world.

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

    even if this does not happen we should just get ubi and universal healthcare going just as a prophylatic. one side is really against prophylactics though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    The people resisting AI because jobs will be lost are fighting a losing battle. There's never been a case in history where we decided not to adopt a new technology because some people would lose their jobs. From a historical perspective, it's not even the wrong decision for humanity.

    They should be focusing on the important stuff, what happens AFTER jobs are eliminated? I personally prefer UBI, and the increase of leisure time, but there's plenty of other options and we should be making sure we discuss the right ones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    They should be focusing on the important stuff, what happens AFTER jobs are eliminated?

    How about the massive theft of art, thoughts, and data?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Does anybody realistically think AI use will stop worldwide because of that? Best case scenario I can see happening is some sort of compensation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    It shouldn’t have begun in the first place if the technology is built on intellectual pillaging and destruction of humanities culmination. That’s the bigger crime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    It shouldn’t have begun in the first place

    I kind of disagree, but that's also an entirely different discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    There’s a big IF at the end of what you quoted. I’m not anti AI in its inevitability. But there’s a very real cost to creating it. And soon to be a steep barrier to entry to that knowledge, or at least the parts they’ll show you.

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

    destruction of humanities culmination

    That's definitely a big if, I'm not even sure what that means, much less that it's true.

    Regarding intellectual pillaging, that depends on your opinion of it. I'm of the viewpoint that it's no significantly different from any human learning from the works of those that came before. Also not a fan of copyright as it exists, so...

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

    things like this.

    Where they’re taking old books, which have a finite quantity to them, scanning the information, and destroying the books. That is literally destruction of information, and en masse, destroys what we have collectively gained in knowledge as a civilization. Because at the end of all of this, only a handful of people will truly have access to it. What the rest of us will see is what they will allow. And as it stands, I do not trust the current curators. I do not support the destruction or limiting of information.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I agree with you, that's a significant negative. Though it's as much on us as a society as anything else that we aren't valuing and preserving those books properly to begin with.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/worlds-largest-open-library-calls-for-volunteers-to-scan-and-preserve-physical-books-as-ai-companies-buy-scan-and-destroy-them-annas-archive-says-time-is-running-out-as-knowledge-is-permanently-monopolized-on-private-servers

    Silver lining, it's prompting a speed up in digitisation.

    My original comment wasn't about defending AI or its (lack of) ethics, though. Just recognising that AI is likely here to stay, and that we should be moving the discussion to dealing with the societal impact it brings instead of spending our energy tilting at windmills while the assholes in charge widen the wealth gap even further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago

    I think one company recently realized why AI won't work as great as they expect it to. It's expensive! It costs more than current employees. On top of that companies are handing over power to other companies who control the AI they implement. So the company loses lower wage people and control of elements of their own company, not to mention if the AI is used to talk with the customer they hate it and can lead to worse service which lowers the brands name. The last part is if it's expensive now it will only continue to get more expensive not lower. Thats just not how businesses work. So that contract they signed today will most likely put a clause of 5% yearly annual increase and when the contract is up it also will most likely cost more upon renewal. So they no longer have the choice to stiff employees each year by saying sorry no raises. Idk how companies can justify this expense over an ectual employee.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •