Brian Merchant has done excellent work covering how LLMs have devoured the work of translators, using cheap, “almost good” automation to lower already-stagnant wages in a field that was already hurting before the advent of generative AI, with some having to abandon the field, and others pushed into bankruptcy. I’ve heard the same for art directors, SEO experts, and copy editors, and Christopher Mims of the Wall Street Journal covered these last year.

These are all fields with something in common: shitty bosses with little regard for their customers who have been eagerly waiting for the opportunity to slash contract labor. To quote Merchant, “the drumbeat, marketing, and pop culture of ‘powerful AI’ encourages and permits management to replace or degrade jobs they might not otherwise have.”

Across the board, the people being “replaced” by AI are the victims of lazy, incompetent cost-cutters who don’t care if they ship poorly-translated text. To quote Merchant again, “[AI hype] has created the cover necessary to justify slashing rates and accepting “good enough” automation output for video games and media products.”

Generative AI creates outputs, and by extension defines all labor as some kind of output created from a request. In the case of translation, it’s possible for a company to get by with a shitty version, because many customers see translation as “what do these words say,” even though (as one worker told Merchant) translation is about conveying meaning. Nevertheless, “translation” work had already started to condense to a world where humans would at times clean up machine-generated text, and the same worker warned that the same might come for other industries.

Yet the problem is that translation is a heavily output-driven industry, one where (idiot) bosses can say “oh yeah that’s fine” because they ran an output back through Google Translate and it seemed fine in their native tongue. The problems of a poor translation are obvious, but the customers of translation are, it seems, often capable of getting by with a shitty product.

The problem is that most jobs are not output-driven at all, and what we’re buying from a human being is a person’s ability to think.

Every CEO talking about AI replacing workers is an example of the real problem: that most companies are run by people who don’t understand or experience the problems they’re solving, don’t do any real work, don’t face any real problems, and thus can never be trusted to solve them. The Era of the Business Idiot is the result of letting management consultants and neoliberal “free market” sociopaths take over everything, leaving us with companies run by people who don’t know how the companies make money, just that they must always make more.

When you’re a big, stupid asshole, every job that you see is condensed to its outputs, and not the stuff that leads up to the output, or the small nuances and conscious decisions that make an output good as opposed to simply acceptable, or even bad.

The only thing “powerful” about generative AI is its mythology. The world’s executives, entirely disconnected from labor and actual production, are doing the only thing they know how to — spend a bunch of money and say vague stuff about “AI being the future.” There are people — journalists, investors, and analysts — that have built entire careers on filling in the gaps for the powerful as they splurge billions of dollars and repeat with increasing desperation that “the future is here” as absolutely nothing happens.

You’ve likely seen a few ridiculous headlines recently. One of the most recent, and most absurd, is that that OpenAI will pay Oracle $300 billion over four years, closely followed with the claim that NVIDIA will “invest” “$100 billion” in OpenAI to build 10GW of AI data centers, though the deal is structured in a way that means that OpenAI is paid “progressively as each gigawatt is deployed,” and OpenAI will be leasing the chips (rather than buying them outright). I must be clear that these deals are intentionally made to continue the myth of generative AI, to pump NVIDIA, and to make sure OpenAI insiders can sell $10.3 billion of shares.

OpenAI cannot afford the $300 billion, NVIDIA hasn’t sent OpenAI a cent and won’t do so if it can’t build the data centers, which OpenAI most assuredly can’t afford to do.

NVIDIA needs this myth to continue, because in truth, all of these data centers are being built for demand that doesn’t exist, or that — if it exists — doesn’t necessarily translate into business customers paying huge amounts for access to OpenAI’s generative AI services.

NVIDIA, OpenAI, CoreWeave and other AI-related companies hope that by announcing theoretical billions of dollars (or hundreds of billions of dollars) of these strange, vague and impossible-seeming deals, they can keep pretending that demand is there, because why else would they build all of these data centers, right?

That, and the entire stock market rests on NVIDIA’s back. It accounts for 7% to 8% of the value of the S&P 500, and Jensen Huang needs to keep selling GPUs. I intend to explain later on how all of this works, and how brittle it really is.

The intention of these deals is simple: to make you think “this much money can’t be wrong.”

It can. These people need you to believe this is inevitable, but they are being proven wrong, again and again, and today I’m going to continue doing so.