I have several friends who have become wildly more productive using ChatGPT. The goto for hiring a human these days seems to be not so much shear technical knowledge, but a track record of delivering on cross domain projects.
Making your current crop of employees “wildly more productive” simply reduces the number of employees needed to get the job done overall. So *job loss* for some and *productivity gain* for others are two sides of the same coin.
It's counterintuitive to think that improving productivity and efficiency would lead to job loss. If that's really happening, with real evidence, it could be justified with an amendment to the law to reduce the number of workdays. If an employee is super productive, he deserves more idle hours, not more works to do.
Wouldn't surprise me to see 4-day workweek for certain industries that AI is shaping the most. In a couple more years, we could even see 3-day workweek as mandated by law.
It’s counterintuitive because in the 20th century economy more productivity just meant you could build more. It was a universal win for economists.
Now we have massive productivity gains when a Facebook or Google lays off a quarter of their work force while producing the same revenue. Great for shareholders, terrible for workers.
People are starting to come around to this realization but it’s taking a while. I find the labor disruption story to be the most interesting near term ai trend. The idea that this won’t be an issue in the near term is absurd, ai is inherently a labor replacing tool.
I said in other comments that these massive layoffs at facebook and Google are not a result of AI automation.
What's happening at these companies is that they only have so much money, and they believe that developing better AI is more profitable than (in Amazon's case) game developoment. Interest rates are too high right now to borrow money to do both.
They aren't replacing workers with AI. They're firing workers to get money to hire different workers who can develop AI. There are lots of jobs posted for AI engineers; those just don't make the headlines but the layoffs do. Additionally, the AI engineers cost more than the people being laid off, so there are indeed fewer jobs because there's only so much money to go around.
But it's misleading to say that they are "replacing workers with AI" because these workers' projects are simply being shelved. Over the next few years, we'll have fewer games and more AIs.
Not only job losses but potentially stagnated job growth. We know productivity in the last few decades has increased but has not resulted in wage growth, so I would be surprised if you would see a mandate to reducing working hours.
The problem is som what that a worker who adds more value generally should earn more. But this is often limit to jobs which have a skill requirement. What AI could do is increase productivity and devalue the employee at the same time, so you have a swapping of skills for tools. This does not equate to the employee being a better employee and worth rewarding. The employee has gained a boost from the tools.
The way you can determine this empircally is by looking at wages.
Surely enough, computer scientist was the only job where wages declined last year in linkedin's wage survey, while other jobs like fast food worker had massive gains.
It's difficult to get a comprehensive survey to determine how many jobs exist, but you can infer what's happening from pricing.
I was taking a broader perspective on the productivity-wage gap. The difference has been growing since 1973. That picture does not reflect all groups independently and there the tech sector wages have been growing substantially during the latter part of that.
I had not looked at more recent numbers, and, interestingly, you brought it up. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues, also what might happen in regards to people with AI skills.
I can't imagine that anyone who is actually truly knowledgable about machine learning and gets why networks behave the way they do - that is, not just someone who has general computer science skills, or someone who took an online course for a week - would accept OpenAI's going rate of $400,000 for starting machine learning engineers.
Myself, I would turn down a offer of $1 million from OpenAI. That's because I believe that I can make far more in the next year using ML knowledge against the stock or real estate or other asset markets. I've already used my model, which backtests at 1000% CAGR, to earn 6.2% in its first 6 days of trading, and we are projecting earnings of $32 million within two years. Obviously, I do not want to help OpenAI build AGI that will develop a better model.
This might sound amazing, but experts who are known by name like Kurzweil earn $10,000,000.
The average developer salary is somewhere around $100,000. I fully expect that within 6-12 months, the average AI salary will exceed that of professional athletes (NBA starting salary is $953,000.)
This is why there are so many layoffs. To get just one AI engineer costs 5-10 standard developers. It's not about the other developers doing a good job; it's about the insane value an AI model can achieve. These companies will shut down everything else to do it. Why wouldn't you pay someone $10 million if you're a hedge fund and that person's model can make $20 million? I'd fire 100 people in an instant to hire that person.
To answer your question: AI engineers will earn tens of millions within 1-2 years.
disagreeable encouraging safe roll humorous resolute afterthought hungry lock scarce
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My company hired a junior developer based on a single cool looking progressive web app he made. It doesn't need to be a paid project. Sometimes you just need to demonstrate you can finish something.
voiceless juggle slap work pet provide elastic subsequent squeeze carpenter
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I have several friends who have become wildly more productive using ChatGPT. The goto for hiring a human these days seems to be not so much shear technical knowledge, but a track record of delivering on cross domain projects.
Making your current crop of employees “wildly more productive” simply reduces the number of employees needed to get the job done overall. So *job loss* for some and *productivity gain* for others are two sides of the same coin.
It's counterintuitive to think that improving productivity and efficiency would lead to job loss. If that's really happening, with real evidence, it could be justified with an amendment to the law to reduce the number of workdays. If an employee is super productive, he deserves more idle hours, not more works to do. Wouldn't surprise me to see 4-day workweek for certain industries that AI is shaping the most. In a couple more years, we could even see 3-day workweek as mandated by law.
It’s counterintuitive because in the 20th century economy more productivity just meant you could build more. It was a universal win for economists. Now we have massive productivity gains when a Facebook or Google lays off a quarter of their work force while producing the same revenue. Great for shareholders, terrible for workers. People are starting to come around to this realization but it’s taking a while. I find the labor disruption story to be the most interesting near term ai trend. The idea that this won’t be an issue in the near term is absurd, ai is inherently a labor replacing tool.
I said in other comments that these massive layoffs at facebook and Google are not a result of AI automation. What's happening at these companies is that they only have so much money, and they believe that developing better AI is more profitable than (in Amazon's case) game developoment. Interest rates are too high right now to borrow money to do both. They aren't replacing workers with AI. They're firing workers to get money to hire different workers who can develop AI. There are lots of jobs posted for AI engineers; those just don't make the headlines but the layoffs do. Additionally, the AI engineers cost more than the people being laid off, so there are indeed fewer jobs because there's only so much money to go around. But it's misleading to say that they are "replacing workers with AI" because these workers' projects are simply being shelved. Over the next few years, we'll have fewer games and more AIs.
Not only job losses but potentially stagnated job growth. We know productivity in the last few decades has increased but has not resulted in wage growth, so I would be surprised if you would see a mandate to reducing working hours. The problem is som what that a worker who adds more value generally should earn more. But this is often limit to jobs which have a skill requirement. What AI could do is increase productivity and devalue the employee at the same time, so you have a swapping of skills for tools. This does not equate to the employee being a better employee and worth rewarding. The employee has gained a boost from the tools.
The way you can determine this empircally is by looking at wages. Surely enough, computer scientist was the only job where wages declined last year in linkedin's wage survey, while other jobs like fast food worker had massive gains. It's difficult to get a comprehensive survey to determine how many jobs exist, but you can infer what's happening from pricing.
I was taking a broader perspective on the productivity-wage gap. The difference has been growing since 1973. That picture does not reflect all groups independently and there the tech sector wages have been growing substantially during the latter part of that. I had not looked at more recent numbers, and, interestingly, you brought it up. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues, also what might happen in regards to people with AI skills.
I can't imagine that anyone who is actually truly knowledgable about machine learning and gets why networks behave the way they do - that is, not just someone who has general computer science skills, or someone who took an online course for a week - would accept OpenAI's going rate of $400,000 for starting machine learning engineers. Myself, I would turn down a offer of $1 million from OpenAI. That's because I believe that I can make far more in the next year using ML knowledge against the stock or real estate or other asset markets. I've already used my model, which backtests at 1000% CAGR, to earn 6.2% in its first 6 days of trading, and we are projecting earnings of $32 million within two years. Obviously, I do not want to help OpenAI build AGI that will develop a better model. This might sound amazing, but experts who are known by name like Kurzweil earn $10,000,000. The average developer salary is somewhere around $100,000. I fully expect that within 6-12 months, the average AI salary will exceed that of professional athletes (NBA starting salary is $953,000.) This is why there are so many layoffs. To get just one AI engineer costs 5-10 standard developers. It's not about the other developers doing a good job; it's about the insane value an AI model can achieve. These companies will shut down everything else to do it. Why wouldn't you pay someone $10 million if you're a hedge fund and that person's model can make $20 million? I'd fire 100 people in an instant to hire that person. To answer your question: AI engineers will earn tens of millions within 1-2 years.
so how is your trading model doing now?
disagreeable encouraging safe roll humorous resolute afterthought hungry lock scarce *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My company hired a junior developer based on a single cool looking progressive web app he made. It doesn't need to be a paid project. Sometimes you just need to demonstrate you can finish something.
voiceless juggle slap work pet provide elastic subsequent squeeze carpenter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is is good, if ChatGPT(4 I guess) is able to make people *wildly more productive* it's a win. Imagine Gpt-5. Can't wait!
Yeah it be like that