Thoughts on AI and Jobs

https://blog.keyvan.net/p/thoughts-on-ai-and-jobs

by k1m • 1 month ago

17 56 1 month ago

blog.keyvan.net

jqpabc1232• 1 month ago

Any technology that reduces the need for jobs should be celebrated, in my view.

Sounds like someone who is gainfully employed. Try the alternative for a while and let us know how it goes.

Reality has a persistent ability to clarify your thinking.

N_Lens2• 1 month ago

You did not grasp the thesis in the post.

jqpabc1232• 1 month ago

AI good, jobs bad?

estearum7• 1 month ago

Like every single productivity improvement before it, the bulk of the gains of AI will be piled into land rents, which then gets diffused into the cost of everything that happens upon land (which is everything). Then we'll just remark "wow, we still need to keep working because the cost of living has really gone up!" and somehow not realize that the only thing in our economy where its inputs have not increased in price -- ever -- is the land beneath our feet. There are no input costs! Yet somehow the prices keep rising.

Suspicious.

The more immediately unique thing about AI as far as employment is that through all previous innovations, the substrate of adaptation in our economy has still been the human brain. That problem-solving capacity gets encoded into different industries, processes, and products, but fundamentally the thing that keeps humans relevant is that their brains are the things doing the problem-solving, and they get to capture varying amounts of value for playing that role.

AI, at the limit, probably eliminates this role. AFAICT there's no reason that AI cannot itself become the "substrate of adaptation," and completely remove humans from the adaptation-machine that is a modern economy, at which point they (humans) will have no valid claim to that value creation.

Der_Einzige2• 1 month ago

Georgism is the only good leftwing economic system.

I wish we had a modern version of him with more popularity than Andrew yang

estearum7• 1 month ago

It's really not even leftwing. It's the purest form of capitalism, but it would move us closer to the leftwing utopia than any idea the Yangs of the world have ever proposed.

roenxi3• 1 month ago

Then we'll just remark "wow, we still need to keep working because the cost of living has really gone up!"

Historically we've said "our standard of living goes up if we keep working!" and kept working. If you're happy to live to a 1700s standard life today you can probably get away only doing a little work every year. In practice people value free time less than improving their material circumstances.

Yet somehow the prices keep rising.

There is an official government policy in all the English speaking countries I know about that every year prices should rise exponentially. I'd tag that as the most likely reason prices keep rising. It is surprising people don't point at it more often when prices rise.

estearum7• 1 month ago

These are not incompatible with each other. If not for growth in land rents (which has no reason to exist given the complete lack of input costs), then each unit of labor would produce a more substantial improvement to their material circumstances.

Land rents are a very aggressive tax on all activity.

There is an official government policy in all the English speaking countries I know about that every year prices should rise exponentially. I'd tag that as the most likely reason prices keep rising. It is surprising people don't point at it more often when prices rise.

Sure but this is an economic necessity to prevent an extremely perverse incentive (to not spend money as its value is expected to grow). The rise in land rents, or more specifically its capture by private individuals, is not an economic necessity and is itself a perverse incentive (to not utilize land as its value is expected to grow).

Monetary inflation adds more money to circulation which creates more production and eventually is economically neutral. The "increased prices" do not get captured by anyone. This is not how land rents work. The increased prices of land do not increase production whatsoever – the land already exists – and the increased prices are captured exclusively by landowners even though they get infused into and distributed across every price in the economy.

NoOn3• 1 month ago

People often say that things only get better and cheaper with tech progress, but it doesn't always seem so straightforward to me. Does the average(median) citizen own more land, houses, or cars/vehicles than he did ~50 years ago for example?...

early_exit• 1 month ago

I'm not so convinced on the land rent thesis.

Fewer jobs, less money --> people less willing to pay for anything more than bare minimum --> downward pressure where being cheap is the biggest selling point.

estearum7• 1 month ago

The thesis (pre-AI) is not "fewer jobs, less money."

It's "more productivity, more money → higher land rents → upward pressure on everything → higher floor of economic productivity required for someone to earn a plot of land to live or work upon"

01284a7e• 1 month ago

In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell: https://ia801002.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.4...

mark_l_watson• 1 month ago

I am retired, so maybe I don’t get a say in this, but as a human who enjoys life in nature and hanging with family and friends, and also in periods of free time constantly exploring technology to understand the tools I use to the best of my abilities:

I find using minimal-capability local models or cheap commercial models like deepseek v4 flash to be the most satisfying because I am a major partner in solving problems or simply trying to better understand the world. I do like access to very strong models a few times a week.

A friend’s son and a young tech friend in town have very different views than I do because they are struggling in a tough job market and want a competitive advantage. I am grateful that I am not in that position.

DrewADesign2• 1 month ago

Being able to set up a local tool chain that costs little more than the electricity to power your video card, I think, could be an important “know how to make a good dev environment” kind of skill once more companies start getting priced out of unsubsidized frontier model services.

But it’s sad that the base developer skill set is so devalued that learning something that would take people a few weeks to train you on is what gets your foot in the door.

_fw2• 1 month ago

I’d love for AI to take my job and free me from the burdensome toil of creating shareholder value.

Not sure it will feed my kids, put a roof over my head and look after me as I age and my body fails me though.

As mentioned below, it’s easy to feel safe and secure when one has the means, independent of their livelihood.

DrewADesign2• 1 month ago

I think many people in tech have existed in a high-demand labor market for so long that they have no idea how much less other job markets reward people for their intelligence, work ethic, knowledge, education, etc. From the very inception of these LLM coding tools, some people predicted this would destroy the dev job market, and others said ‘maybe it will replace other software developers but there’s no way it could replace me,’ seemingly assuming their role would remain largely unchanged, regardless of how the field changed. Now that cavalier attitude has been adopted by the developers who’ve fashioned themselves into ai-wrangling software creators.

Transitioning from software developer to ai-wrangling software creator is a lateral move that’s a lot easier than starting a new career, and if we have a bunch of developers out of work with mortgages to pay and kids to feed, guess what their first attempt will be? And guess what salaries are like in roles with a giant labor surplus? Companies don’t pay people what they’re worth — they pay people what they’ll work for. If you’re looking at a foreclosure notice and no other prospects, or health insurance that costs $1500/mo and your kid has a chronic health condition, you will do a tougher job than your last one for less money than your interns made, and after staring the losing-everything abyss face-to-face, you will feel lucky to have it.

k1m11• 1 month ago

I think many people in tech have existed in a high-demand labor market for so long that they have no idea how much less other job markets reward people for their intelligence, work ethic, knowledge, education, etc.

Absolutely! It's fascinating that when I discuss the job issue, and how undemocratic and soul-crushing it is for many people, there's this huge chasm between what most workers experience in their jobs, and that small, vocal group of highly paid, in-demand workers, who enjoy a lot of freedom and who've never experienced the other side.

From the very inception of these LLM coding tools, some people predicted this would destroy the dev job market, and others said ‘maybe it will replace other software developers but there’s no way it could replace me,’ seemingly assuming their role would remain largely unchanged, regardless of how the field changed.

It's fascinating to watch, and it prickles people's egos. If the thing I spent a lot of time learning to do well, and which gave me status and a high salary, can be done easily by a machine, does that mean I'm not special? I saw this tweet from a very experienced developer, Dax Raad, that captures a part of it well I think[1]:

i used to say programming was creative work
except LLMs are fine at programming and are literal 0s for more obviously creative work
i think we mistook enumerating a lot of possibilities and picking one for being creative

[1] https://x.com/thdxr/status/2064705679298896105

k1m11• 1 month ago

My post focused more on trying to question why we value jobs so much, beyond the paychecks they offer. I didn't get into alternatives, but Universal Basic Income (UBI) is what you'll see discussed most often as an alternative. I'm certainly not arguing for taking away people's paychecks and then letting them fend for themselves with nothing to replace it.

nutjob2• 1 month ago

If a job or task can be automated, it should be automated. That process increases productivity which is good for the economy and society.

The mistake people make is thinking AI is going to lay waste to almost all employment.

It may change many jobs and eliminate some but see above. If you live in a (functioning) democracy the notion is politically improbable. That's not to say there are not people who will vote against their own interests, again and again, even after being screwed each time. The point is that being politically aware, savvy and organized is an important part of surviving. This was always the case, but recent events make this starkly obvious.

On top of that AI projections are currently a form of mass hysteria or greedy fantasy, depending on if you see yourself as labor or capital. Both utterly unhinged from reality.

_fw2• 1 month ago

Realistically, almost 1/4 of the world don’t live in a democracy. And probably another 1/4 of the world doesn’t live in a functioning democracy. By your logic, does that mean half of the global population actually ARE at risk of AI laying waste to almost all employment?

I am by no means an AI doomer, and I use frontier models to a great extent every day as part of my job…

But those at the top of the corporate food chain, those who own and profit from the AI companies themselves, will reap the rewards of this technology.

Maybe there won’t be a dramatic elimination of jobs. But even if there isn’t, the overwhelming majority of the “value” will be going to the 1% and the working class will benefit not.

Heads they win, tails we lose.

AI will not meaningfully improve the standard of living or the quality of life of the everyman. But it will funnel even more of his share of the profit from his work to his corporate paymasters.

Previously we had strikes, powerful unions and even revolutions. There will be none of that this time round.

pyrale3• 1 month ago

If you live in a (functioning) democracy the notion is politically improbable.

Anyone with even a hint of interest in labour movements in western countries probably knows that there is no such thing as a democracy working well enough to protect workers when push comes to shove.

bozdemir• 1 month ago

I don’t think anyone can predict 1 year later. It is all in the hands of few select people. After today’s news -fable being suspended- I am not sure what to think of future jobs. I can only guess that human connection will be more important in the future.

pyrale3• 1 month ago

I have sympathy for people worried about losing their livelihoods. But at the same time I struggle to sympathise with the idea that jobs themselves are something sacred we should be fighting for.

I can agree with the author's point, but they seem oblivious to the fact that people lamenting the loss of their job is usually the politically correct way for them to lament the loss of their paycheck.

k1m11• 1 month ago

I understand that, and that's what I was trying to get at with the post. That an AI future which can take away jobs, doesn't have to be a bad one if the paycheck is replaced with something else. The Rutger Bergman piece I linked to argues for Universal Basic Income. Many people assume jobs are the only way.

FromTheFirstIn2• 1 month ago

No one is confused by this, though. “Work sucks” might be the most universally agreed to statement. It seems like you take talk of jobs too literally when most of the time people are excited not to starve, not excited to have their job.

pyrale3• 1 month ago

What I was getting at, is that people argue about jobs rather than about money, is that society values work, not paying "bums". They may be more or less self-conscious about it. If you offer to pay them for not working, they are likely going to be suspicious, and for good reason: for all of their lives, and for all of society's life, paying people for existing has been, essentially, frowned upon.

And that's the issue with UBI: no one in their right minds can believe that UBI won't be (or quickly become) the bare minimum needed for people not to riot. And those of us that are pessimistic or have read history books know that, at some point, there is also the risk that people on UBI may get deported/castrated/sent to work camps/killed (or, in modern parlance, transformed into biodiesel). That's not necessarily the agenda of people arguing for UBI, but that's an inevitable risk that comes with it.

relte• 1 month ago

A few-paragraph post of no worth.

"Oh, work is undemocratic, how odd we devote so much time to it!" - do you realise what work is? That it is at the foundation of human civilisation? Most things you see around you every day are the result of someone's work.

And of course you don't present even the slightest idea how else the world might work.

skeledrew4• 1 month ago

Work is at the foundation of human civilization. And continuously tooling and automating it away is what had allowed civilization to progress to where it is today.

The world can work pretty much as it did before civilization: people went out to get what they needed, little to no fuss. Except instead of climbing a few fruit trees or hunting a mammoth, now one can go to a resource distribution machine (generic term I've coined for a "vending" machine), insert a resource card (not debit/credit card) because resource usage still needs to be tracked to ensure efficient distribution, and carry on with life. Machines do all the provisioning, etc in the background just as nature provisions fruit on trees and edible animals.

forgetfreeman• 1 month ago

"I struggle to sympathise with the idea that jobs themselves are something sacred we should be fighting for."

I struggle to take what is ultimately an unintentional display of the author's privilege seriously. There is no political will to reverse course on 70-odd years of redbaiting that would be a required first step toward any of the changes to resource distribution that would be required to avoid the economy collapsing when jobs start getting scarce. Shoulda coulda woulda oughta, whatever, Big Money threatens capital flight whenever a modest adjustment to simple taxation is suggested. There is no future in which they willingly submit to the kind of redistribution that would be required to finance a society where work is optional.

k1m11• 1 month ago

There is no future in which they willingly submit to the kind of redistribution that would be required to finance a society where work is optional.

Do they ever willingly submit to anything that results in less money for them? Too early to know if AI will actually reduce the need for jobs, but if it does, are they going to be forced to create positions for roles they don't need, so that there are no job losses? And what will people do in those roles?

strangescript• 1 month ago

The fundamental flaw in all these style arguments against core employment is people's personal desire to have a straight forward path for survival that doesn't involve a lot of strategic thought.

Its hard for highly intelligent people to understand that others simply DGAF. They just want their paycheck and they don't want to think about it deeply.

Thought leaders have existed since the dawn of human history. There were always scuffles at the top, but there were plenty of people that just went about their business, filling their roles and doing their jobs for the tribe.

k1m11• 1 month ago

The fundamental flaw in all these style arguments against core employment is people's personal desire to have a straight forward path for survival that doesn't involve a lot of strategic thought.

One of the most popular alternatives proposed is Universal Basic Income, where you just get a sum of money periodically. That's more straight forward for survival than holding down a job, and worrying about layoffs.

markovblanket• 1 month ago

"new roles might emerge where AI is no good" - doesn't this imply that the AI is simply dumb, which leads to contradiction that it is in fact artificial intelligence? nobody will use artificial dumbness, except on X to satire, i suspect...

k1m11• 1 month ago

I'm not in the camp that believes AI is actually going to reach human intelligence. So yes, AI is simply dumb. But many people overlook the fact that many of our jobs today require exactly that level of dumbness. So saying AI is dumb doesn't say much about whether it can replace a lot of jobs or not.

phyzix5761• 1 month ago

There's meaning in the pain. I retired last year and for the first six months I felt lost and empty inside, like there was no meaning or purpose to my life. It wasn't until I started doing volunteer work that I found meaning again but for a while it was rough. I don't know if its an evolutionary side effect but humans need structure and goals in life which work provides.

k1m11• 1 month ago

I agree, but I think it's a shame that this purpose to life is tied to jobs. It's understandable, because pretty much everyone's path in life is schooling, then a job. So the job becomes our purpose and identity. Job loss can then create a void that people don't know how to fill, because it's all they've had.

N_Lens2• 1 month ago

I know several people who really enjoyed/are enjoying their retirements without feeling this inner emptiness and feeling of being lost. I think you're generalizing to all humans from your individual experience when it is not the general rule.

LastTrain• 1 month ago

The whole “guiding hand” of our government is done through the lense of job creation. Tax incentives. Protectionist trade policies. War. IP law. It all imperfectly comes down to job creation, because jobs are fucking important and necessary. Beware people who now come along and say “oh jobs aren’t that great” because they are warming you to accept a certain reality. That is to say, this essay is not just complete rubbish, it is dangerous rubbish.

k1m11• 1 month ago

because jobs are fucking important and necessary

Why are they important and necessary, and for whom?

Driver4732• 1 month ago

There's so much wrong with this post.

Yes, LLMs are useful when used ethically. But when it's controlled by greedy and corrupt people, it's going to be used as a weapon to further widen the class divide between the wealthy and poor. The main reason why it has received so much investment is because greedy CEOs dream of AI as being the ultimate people replacer. All of them are short-sighted individuals only concerned with quick wins on the stock market and do not give any thought to what that would do to regular folks. If no one has a job due to AI who will buy their products and services?

The parasitic nature of LLMs takes the work of people and regurgitates an output without compensating the original creators. Without an incentive (i.e., paycheck) for people to work (e.g., code, write articles, answer forum questions, etc.), how will LLM technology continue to thrive in the future? LLMs cannot solve novel problems. That is a unique human ability that AI cannot replace now.

Yes, LLM tech should be celebrated. But when wielded and overhyped by greedy people there are good reasons to be skeptical 'AI Denialists.'

k1m11• 1 month ago

Without an incentive (i.e., paycheck) for people to work (e.g., code, write articles, answer forum questions, etc.)

Many people do all those things in their spare time, unpaid, because they genuinely enjoy it. Let's not conflate work with a job. https://seths.blog/2026/05/doing-your-job-vs-doing-your-work...

skeledrew4• 1 month ago

If no one has a job due to AI who will buy their products and services?

I'd say this is the ultimate sticking point. No more buying/selling since nobody has money, no more money flowing in the economy, etc which kills it. Move to an economic model that actually fits humans not needing a job to survive.

alkyon• 1 month ago

This blog post offers no new insights.

Let's imagine that half of the jobs or more are lost. It would create a shock for the economy as a whole, incomparable with anything that happened before.

It's a snake eating its own tail paradox. It means massive bankruptcies across all sectors and some governments defaulting on their debts. We can forget about UBI in these circumstances. Yes, OpenAI and Anthropic will pay more taxes but the economy as a whole will be uprooted.

skeledrew4• 1 month ago

Nothing wrong with uprooting a dysfunctional economic system.

cultofmetatron• 1 month ago

all this talk of "protecting people's jobs"

no, we need to get rid of as many jobs as possible. whats missing is talk of a universal basic income. AI is going to get rid of a lot of jobs but people still need to eat and have a place to live. its really created a need for us to explore a system beyond the lessai fair capitalism the US has been creating over the years. tax AI and use it for building subsidized housing and food. made education free so that we can learn skills AI can't do.

satisfice• 1 month ago

I think you are right. ALSO, this is not happening and will not even start happening because no mechanism exists to make the kinds of transformations necessary for it to happen.

I think I know how patricians felt as the Roman Empire was falling and all the systems of long distance trade collapsed. You can see it happening but you can’t change anything.

Thoughts on AI and Jobs

Related Stories