'just put it in ChatGPT': the workers who lost their jobs to AI

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/31/the-workers-who-lost-their-jobs-to-ai-chatgpt

by fallinditch • 1 year ago

44 14 1 year ago

pdfernhout2• 1 year ago

What I put together circa 2010 is becoming more and more relevant: https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html "This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

fallinditch• 1 year ago

Thanks for the link, I will dive into it later. Your description of local subsistence economies sounds like CED, community economic development, which I think could become extremely relevant.

We need to support and train and find the social entrepreneurs who will pioneer and grow these economic alternatives.

up-n-atom2• 1 year ago

It’s far more bleak, what about the jobs that aren’t given? And the big unknown? Is this all just a fad? Who’s next on the chopping block? Etc.

ivape2• 1 year ago

"... what about the jobs that aren’t given?"

I guess I would have had to have paid a CGI studio to have made this for me once upon a time:

https://streamable.com/xsiip5

Or at least a freelancer. So that's one person that's out of a job. That took about 5 minutes with Google Whisk. In fact, if you know a thing or two about 3D/compositing, let me know how much time and effort this would have cost in 2018 please.

Aliabid94• 1 year ago

Was there any trade off using AI? Like limit in customizability due to using prompts that would not be the case if you hired someone.

Output video looks very cool

vunderba• 1 year ago

I've said it before but one market that gets hit hard is the gig economy. The quality of generative AI may not be professional level, but it presents an easy drop-in replacement for one-off tasks that people previously outsourced to platforms like Fiverr (voiceovers, logo design, clip art, copy editing, translation, etc).

Velorivox• 1 year ago

I believe there is nuance here. Something akin to the 'last mile' problem in delivery exists in these realms as well — AI can get close, and usually even complete the task when the artifact is not the end product — but in cases where one does care about selling the output to others, AI can result in more gig work, not less.

For example, many games that previously had no voice at all can now take a low-cost crack at voiceovers and, if it works, get professional VAs. Similarly people who would otherwise waste a long time in a back and forth can send AI generated concept art directly to a 3d modeler to model and rig. This reduces the risk of the transaction (will I get what I actually want?) significantly for these jobs.

However, as with any other technological leverage, it will exacerbate the power law distribution. Once you know what you're getting and that it will be worth it, you're much more likely to hire better professionals and pay them more.

squidbeak• 1 year ago

Why would it be a fad if LLMs can do the work? They'll always be cheaper than human labor.

devoutsalsa• 1 year ago

Would you hire someone known to be a hallucinating liar?

up-n-atom2• 1 year ago

Humans have guns. You must have been noticing the crime uptake everywhere. This is no coincidence and it’ll get worse and never better until the system is derailed. Not to say society will not change its viewpoint on human appreciation and humility, similarly in Japan where manmade has a greater appeal and respect for the sacrifice for one’s art.

We’re not enslaved to the system but to our own desire for accomplishment. Being lazy for a day is fine but being lazy for life isn’t sustainable. There are only two avenues adulting humans can take, it’s either work (crime included) or substance abuse (drugs & alcohol).

sandspar• 1 year ago

I suppose you could do a mirror article: "The millions of people who gained access to a graphic designer, audiobook narrator, copywriter, and illustrator - for $30 a month."

pdfernhout2• 1 year ago

Indeed; good point! And how will all that play out? Better communications or more schlock to wade through on the internet? Or both?

As a historical analogy, a lot of telephone switchboard operators lost their jobs with the beginning of direct dialing with better telephone switching -- and direct dialing presumably is preferred by most people than having to talk with a person before their calls go through. Although something was also lost in that telephone operators also had a broader informal social role in a community (including as a gossip) and also informally coordinated some emergency services (judging from old-time movies).

Related: https://www.bbntimes.com/society/telephone-operators-the-eli... "As late as 1950, there were about 350,000 women working as switchboard operators working for phone company, and maybe another million working as switchboard operators at offices, factories, hotels, and apartments. Roughly one of every 13 working women was a switchboard operator. Of course, now the number of switchboard operators is nearly zero. The example is often given to point out that in a dynamic economy, even when hundreds of thousands of jobs are “lost,” workers do manage to transition to new jobs. But that basic story lacks detail. James Feigenbaum and Daniel P. Gross have been digging into two aspects: 1) What happened to the women who were displaced from switchboard operator jobs; and 2) for AT&T, what determined the speed and timing of investing in automation to replace switchboard operators? ... The effect of this shock on incumbent operators was to dispossess many of their jobs and careers: telephone operators in cities with cutovers were less likely to be in the same job the next decade we observe them, less likely to be working at all, and conditional on working were more likely to be in lower-paying occupations. In contrast, however, automation did not reduce employment rates in subsequent cohorts of young women, who found work in other sectors—including jobs with similar demographics and wages (such as typists and secretaries), and some with lower wages (such as food service workers)."

So, it sounds like the next generation who pursued different careers did OK even if the displaced generation did worse?

One difference though is that switchboard operator was a relatively recently introduced job in the past century given telephones are a recent invention. People have been writing/thinking, speaking/acting, and painting/drawing/art-ing essentially since there were people (essentially the jobs in the article being replaced).

'just put it in ChatGPT': the workers who lost their jobs to AI

Related Stories