I came across this article in another Lemmy community that dislikes AI. I’m reposting instead of cross posting so that we could have a conversation about how “work” might be changing with advancements in technology.

The headline is clickbaity because Altman was referring to how farmers who lived decades ago might perceive that the work “you and I do today” (including Altman himself), doesn’t look like work.

The fact is that most of us work far abstracted from human survival by many levels. Very few of us are farming, building shelters, protecting our families from wildlife, or doing the back breaking labor jobs that humans were forced to do generations ago.

In my first job, which was IT support, the concept was not lost on me that all day long I pushed buttons to make computers beep in more friendly ways. There was no physical result to see, no produce to harvest, no pile of wood being transitioned from a natural to a chopped state, nothing tangible to step back and enjoy at the end of the day.

Bankers, fashion designers, artists, video game testers, software developers and countless other professions experience something quite similar. Yet, all of these jobs do in some way add value to the human experience.

As humanity’s core needs have been met with technology requiring fewer human inputs, our focus has been able to shift to creating value in less tangible, but perhaps not less meaningful ways. This has created a more dynamic and rich life experience than any of those previous farming generations could have imagined. So while it doesn’t seem like the work those farmers were accustomed to, humanity has been able to shift its attention to other types of work for the benefit of many.

I postulate that AI - as we know it now - is merely another technological tool that will allow new layers of abstraction. At one time bookkeepers had to write in books, now software automatically encodes accounting transactions as they’re made. At one time software developers might spend days setting up the framework of a new project, and now an LLM can do the bulk of the work in minutes.

These days we have fewer bookkeepers - most companies don’t need armies of clerks anymore. But now we have more data analysts who work to understand the information and make important decisions. In the future we may need fewer software coders, and in turn, there will be many more software projects that seek to solve new problems in new ways.

How do I know this? I think history shows us that innovations in technology always bring new problems to be solved. There is an endless reservoir of challenges to be worked on that previous generations didn’t have time to think about. We are going to free minds from tasks that can be automated, and many of those minds will move on to the next level of abstraction.

At the end of the day, I suspect we humans are biologically wired with a deep desire to output rewarding and meaningful work, and much of the results of our abstracted work is hard to see and touch. Perhaps this is why I enjoy mowing my lawn so much, no matter how advanced robotic lawn mowing machines become.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    44 seconds ago

    I’ve been thinking a lot about this since chatgpt dropped and I agree with Sam here despite the article trying to rage bait people. We simply shouldn’t protect the job market from the point of view of identity or status. We should keep an open mind of jobs and work culture could look like in the future.

    Unfortunately this issue is impossible to discuss without conflating it with general economics and wealth imbalance so we’ll never have an adult discussion here. We can actually have both - review/kill/create new jobs and work cultures and address wealth imbalance but not in some single silver bullet solution.

  • sobchak@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    43 minutes ago

    The problem is the capitalist investor class, by and large, determines what work will be done, what kinds of jobs there will be, and who will work those jobs. They are becoming increasingly out of touch with reality as their wealth and power grows and seem to be trying to mold the world into something, somewhere along the lines of what Curtis Yarven advocates for, that most people would consider very dystopian.

    This discussion is also ignoring the fact that currently, 95% of AI projects fail, and studies show that LLM use hurts the productivity of programmers. But yeah, there will almost surely be breakthroughs in the future that will produce more useful AI tech; nobody knows what the timeline for that is though.

    • lemmeLurk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 minutes ago

      But isn’t the investment still driven by consumption in the end? They invest in what makes money, but in the end things people are willing to spend money on make money.

  • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.

    – The Orange Catholic Bible

    Also, that pompous chucklefuck can go fuck himself. There are people who could barely feed themselves at less than a couple dollars per day.

  • robocall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Then that software engineer that was replaced by AI becomes Sam’s personal chef to kill him

    • lemmeLurk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 minutes ago

      Honestly (as a software engineer), we should have less of a privileged attitude towards being replaced. In the end, that’s what software engineers have been doing for years regarding other jobs.

  • vipaal@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    So, how do we go about making him our collective lawnmower in chief? He is giving us an exit plan on a platter. To sweeten the deal, I’m happy to let him uptalk and vocal fry all he wants. He’s saying on record that he ‘enjoys’ mowing his lawn. Pretty sure we can have him mowing all of our lawns and ‘enjoy’ it too.

    • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      What do we need the mega rich for anyway?

      Supposedly the creation and investment of industries, then managing those businesses which also supposedly provide employment for thousands who make the things for them. Except they’ll find ways to cut costs and maximize profit. Like looking for cheaper labor while at the same time thinking of building the next megayacht for which to flex off at Monte Carlo next summer.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Sam, I say this will all my heart…

    Fuck you very kindly. I’m pretty sure what you do is not “a real job” and should be replaced by AI.

  • DupaCycki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    To be fair, a lot of jobs in capitalist societies are indeed pointless. Some of them even actively do nothing but l subtract value from society.

    That said, people still need to make a living and his piece of shit artificial insanity is only making it more difficult. How about stop starving people to death and propose solutions to the problem?

    • SanicHegehog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There’s a book Bullshit Jobs that explores this phenomenon. Freakonomics also did an episode referring to the book, which I found interesting.

      Bullshit Jobs: A Theory is a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber that postulates the existence of meaningless jobs and analyzes their societal harm. He contends that over half of societal work is pointless and becomes psychologically destructive when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      They may seem pointless to those outside of the organization. As long as someone is willing to pay them then someone considers they have value.

      No one is “starving to death” but you’d have people just barely scraping by.

      • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        This is the tricky nature of “value”, isn’t it?

        Something can be both valuable and detrimental to humanity.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        With many bearaucracies there’s plenty of practically valueless work going on.

        Because some executive wants to brag about having over a hundred people under them. Because some proceas requires a sort of document be created that hasn’t been used in decades but no one has the time to validate what does or does not matter anymore. Because of a lot of little nonsense reasons where the path of least resistance is to keep plugging away. Because if you are 99 percent sure something is a waste of time and you optimize it, there’s a 1% chance you’ll catch hell for a mistake and almost no chance you get great recognition for the efficiency boost if it pans out.

  • Curious Canid@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Sam Altman is a huckster, not a technologist. As such, I don’t really care what he says about technology. His purpose has always been to transfer as much money as possible from investors into his own pocket before the bubble bursts. Anything else is incidental.

    I am not entirely writing off LLMs, but very little of the discussion about them has been rational. They do some things fairly well and a lot of things quite poorly. It would be nice if we could just focus on the former.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 minutes ago

      hes probably afraid, its going to burst too fast and is left holding the bag, thats why GATES, musk, MS, google is trying to stem the bleeding.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    The guys name is too perfect.

    Altman. Alternative man.

    Just not a good alternative.

    After his extreamly creepy interview with Tucker Carlsson about that whistleblower who died, I know he is not right in the head.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    CEO isn’t an actual job either, it’s just the 21st century’s titre de noblesse.