this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2025
375 points (91.2% liked)

Technology

76592 readers
2901 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 7 points 1 week ago

I have a feeling people are gonna remember that when his job gets wiped out.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Apart from questionable quality of the result, a big issue to me about LLMs is the way it substitutes human interaction with other humans. Which is one of the most fundamental way humans learn, innovate and express themselves.

No technological innovation replaced human interaction with a facsimile, that way before.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[–] Octavio@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Productivity will rise again and we will not get compensated even if we all get better cooler jobs and do the same but 10x more efficiently. Which we won't get to do, some of us will have no jobs.

Earnings from AI and automation need to be redistributed to the people. If it works and AI does not blow up in their face because it's a bubble, they will be so filthy rich that they either don't know what to do with it or lose grip of reality and try to shape politics, countries, the world etc.

See the walking k-hole that tried to make things "more efficient".

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] n4ch1sm0@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago

Let's see how that fairs out with say, for example, a general strike?

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

if you can't build a complete functional AI, you shouldn't be releasing it to the public to start with.

Pushing AI without looking the negatives, just to make a "better feature", does not work like this.

[–] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Jobs like air traffic controllers for example?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Is this where they get rid of the telephone sanitizers and middle managers?

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It’s funny, years ago, a single developer “killing it” on Steam was almost unheard of. It happened, but it was few and far between.

Now, with the advent of powerful engines like Unreal 5 and the latest iterations of Unity, practically anyone outside the Arctic Circle can pick one up and make a game.

Is tech like that taking jobs away from the game industry? Yes. Very much so. But since those programs aren’t technically “AI,” they get a pass. Never mind that they use LLMs to streamline the process, they’re fine because they make games we enjoy playing.

But that’s missing the point. For every job the deployment of some “schedule 1” or “megabonk” tech replaced, it enabled ten more people to play and benefit from the final product. Those games absolutely used AI in development, work that once would’ve gone to human hands.

Technology always reduces jobs in some markets and creates new ones in others.

It’s the natural way of things.

[–] SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, I'm afraid, given what's happening in the world and the fact that the AI ​​bubble will eventually burst, nothing good awaits us in the future except a parody of Blade Runner.

[–] Electricblush@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This.

It will be the baby of idiocracy and blade runner.

All the horrible dehumanising parts, without any of the gritty aesthetics, and every character is some kind of sadistic Elmer Fudd.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Techdirt's infamous buggy whip post

If I was an information worker I'd be trying to be in the top 20% of my field. If it hits 75% of the industry, I have a little cushion.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I think your strategy makes sense for all workers. Being aware of your role in the final solution is more important than the steps needed to get there, and tools merely change the process, often improving it in some way.

A guy with a hammer cant automatically build a house without skills, but it sure helps those who have them. A guy with a nail gun can build a house faster and perhaps with less skill, and few argue that it's not a worthy improvement.

Some types of photographers may no longer need to operate a camera, but instead transition into someone who can knowledgeably ask for the results from an AI that properly captures the mood and tone required for the end result.

We're changing how it's done, but not necessarily what is done.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

If Sam got wiped out he would even be a real man anyway

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›