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.
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$
12 Comments
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 86d
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.
altasshet@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 86d
I get this sinking feeling that they are planning for the worst possible version of a post money world
Steve@startrek.website · 3 pts · 86d
Underclasses as feedstock for the AI farmers compost needs?
deadymouse@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 86d
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 86d
I don't think it ignores it, rather the argument is precisely that that maximal substition won't and can't happen.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 8 pts · 86d
The difference is a tractor did the same job better than a horse.
AI does not do jack fucking shit better than a human.
Dogiedog64@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 85d
Wrong! LLMs produce useless garbage MUCH faster and for FAR higher costs than a human ever could, all while making middle management insanely horny.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 86d
Me, looking at all the horse furries: "I KNEW IT"
whalebiologist@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 85d
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 86d
^[citation^ ^needed]^
StillAlive@piefed.world · 2 pts · 86d
Neigh
Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works · -5 pts · 86d
Every fucking time.
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 86d
It's really not that; it's about how spending and employment patterns have changed historically in response to increased automation.
Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 86d
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$