Knowledge workers hold a different relationship to their labor than manufacturing workers did. For a cognitive professional, expertise is not only an activity. It is a large part of the self. A data scientist who has spent a decade building statistical judgment does not experience that judgment as a detachable tool. It is closer to a personality trait. When automation threatens the work, it reaches past the income and touches the identity.'
Excerpt from the article above. It heavily leans on Reddit quotes, articles posted on Reddit and the number of upvotes to backup or sustain certain arguments. But I found the article informative, and publishing a message and a feeling I've been struggling to describe, write or externalise. Hope it's helpful or at least interesting to us here.
Apparently my feelings of disillusionment, confusion, anxiety, failing self esteem and occasionally anger or frustration from AI has a name that's starting to be written and formalised. Though not yet accepted either informally or formally, but it's starting a conversation which I'm thankful for, _Artificial Intelligence Replacement Dysfunction_. From the article:
"In September 2025, two psychiatrists at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Stephanie McNamara and Joseph E. Thornton, published a paper in the journal Cureus proposing a new construct they call Artificial Intelligence Replacement Dysfunction, or AIRD."
I'll be sharing this article with my psychologist when we meet in a few weeks.
The article author, according to their site's About page, is a "a performance marketing and paid social media director". While that doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinion, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in it either, particularly whether it accurately describes what's happening in the software industry.
Similar to LLM smells in writing, anyone that blogs about Reddit comments to make broad extrapolations about society or psychology or anything really…I just write it off as slop.
They’re low effort takes from terminally online weirdos. The number of upvotes something gets is meaningless. Using it as some kind of appeal to authority or credibility on a topic is a joke.
Like those SEO slop gaming articles about “controversies” because some anonymous account on Reddit complained that a character got race swapped or something.
This crap gets pulled into Google search results and gets repeated as truth by Gemini when it does a web search.
I’m not sure people working on an assembly line in a factory is defining themselves as their work task. Someone working in a factory mounting IPhone screens probably don’t make their job their identity the same way a designer, developer, author does.
(Of course there are manual jobs that people have as their identity.)
Yes, and this is something that is routinely overlooked. Work identities run deep, and they are not easily changed.
Andrew Yang actually made a strong point when he was talking about automation-driven job losses way back in 2019. He said you can offer the best and most expensive retraining programs imaginable to help people displaced from their jobs move to fields like healthcare - but most truck drivers, even if out of work, will never even consider retaining to work as a nurse. Identities are not as malleable to the whims of supply and demand as some might want to believe.
OP did not say anything about skilled workers who make things with their hands. You are describing an artisan or craftsman, or at the very least a tradesman.
The quote is talking about manufacturing labor. This is the guy on the assembly line who lowers the press, makes his thousandth widget for a day, and then lifts it up. Rinse and repeat.
One tiny nanoscopic nitpick, because i agree with you mostly, programming is often creating wider things (abstractions, frameworks). I think it hits a different part compared to most jobs. Maybe... i'm not sure, but that's how i feel compared to other manual occupations that i loved too.
It's also reflective of the author living in a very small bubble. It's quite a shame that chose to include that as I think the article is otherwise relevant and pertinent, but it colors the whole thing.
Elo is zero sum. Each point gained by one player is lost by another. It follows that the mean elo is always exactly equal to the initial elo assigned to new players before they play any games, and can't change over time. If the highest ranked player are higher elo than before, the lower ranked players must be lower elo.
Right, but you have to give the new players some rating, and as long as that number remains constant it will also be the mean Elo. Therefore, "new players entering the pool" can't cause a rise in mean Elo. As for lower rated players leaving, that could indeed raise the mean (assuming you stop counting them in the average), but that changes the point from "players have gotten better because of AI" to "worse players are more likely to just give up on chess because of AI", which is a significantly less optimistic picture IMO.
I am probably different to most people, but I always have trouble understanding why people want to have jobs so much. The obvious and direct answer immediately of course is "to be able to pay the bills".
But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
Then the concern is of course, that the owners will not share the produced value.
But the answer to that in my view is that we should rather do work to be able reach a society where this value will be shared, and not rely on "jobs" being the key thing ultimately.
If I could choose, I would rather not work, and just do what I want to do all day, stress free, for the rest of my life. Also what is the point of doing the same jobs generation after generation? Most of the jobs in modern world aren't really what fit our evolutionary primitive desires in the first place, and it's forced stress.
I think for me it's hard to conceptualize what "do what I want to do all day, stress free, for the rest of my life." really means. Maybe it's just because i've been conditioned since a child to expect to "work" and "do things", but periods of my life where i've had that similar amount of freedom have always felt somewhat aimless and purposeless to me. But would i feel that way if i had never felt the need to work and be productive? Not sure.
For me personally, having the right job is actually more interesting to me than doing whatever i want all day then given my conditioning. I think because without the job I wouldn't have the same opportunity to encounter the "problems" i enjoy "solving" at work with critical thinking. It's kinda like training for a sport? Sometimes having a competition or a game is a nice forcing function to make it all feel real?
I could think of so many fun things to do. Sports, video games, building things for fun specifically, learning, films, books, shows, travelling, being with family, etc. You could still do competitive sports in different avenues right. I feel like I could focus so much more on health and wellbeing, and things that I actually enjoy etc. It's not like in grand scheme of things any job realistically matters, except for the paycheck it brings me. I'd rather have humanity reach new levels where we discover something new about universe, but for that we'd have to evolve via tech, than people doing the same job over and over. What other tech besides AI could take us there?
I agree with you completely, but I also have never been able to square the idea of how any of that stuff would still exist if we didn't have jobs.
Sports (in some aspects) needs facilities, gear, arenas, other people to participate with. Building things usually requires materials (unless you're bushcrafting) that requires a fully-functioning supply chain. Video games and shows and films (at the quality level we expect them to be) require herculean efforts from thousands of people each, and massive investments, to go from concept to completion. Travel in and of itself is predicated on the ideas that the hospitality industry exists, infrastructure for flight, rail, bus, car all exist (and are operational), that the very people that are the fabric and heartbeat of the culture you're traveling to experience exist, and are operating restaurants, businesses, etc.
Every leisure activity that we think of occupying our time with instead of a job requires the collective efforts of the rest of society to even exist, and kind of implies that your ability to lead a life of leisure is an anomaly. Some things can arguably be replaced with AI and robots, but the texture and tactility that we crave from most of these activities would be gone. Traveling to Scotland to get a plate of haggis and hang out in a pub just wouldn't be the same if your driverless taxi took you to the unmanned airport full of kiosks and humanoid sentries, to be loaded half-conscious into a metal tube and flown across the planet, ultimately driven to the ends of the Earth and dropped off at a 600 year old crumbling building where you're met by R2-D2 wearing a kilt and a tam o'shanter, talking like Groundskeeper Willie LOL
If AI replaced jobs one by one, these things should still have to exist, right?
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I would still see all of this existing and even more due to demand. The idea with automation would be that everything that people want would still be there and even more. I would think we build more football stadiums, more hobby facilities, replacing business offices and other things we don't need with those.
I would also see e.g. video games being even greater than they are now, because people would be able to follow their passion and creativity and build games that won't require monetization and are unaffected by outside pressure. I have massive amount of video game ideas that I think would be super awesome, but not really easily monetizable. I would probably build a lot of them, especially with being able to do those so much faster with AI. If AI can do all the games by itself and doesn't require my or anyone's creativity, then super, I will just play them, because by definition they have to be better than anything so far, and if they are not, then by definition human creativity still matters there and they can build, either way seems good to me.
As for travel, I think there would be people out there doing this out of hobby, having pubs as a hobby thing, hosting people as a hobby, spreading their existing culture out of passion, not because they need to make money. I would actually prefer that type of travel over feeling like they only act friendly to me because I will be paying to them. In this case it would be visiting people who want you to visit them with no exchange of anything, both sides would be doing it out of curiosity or desire.
I just got back from a 12 mile trail run. I'd love to be on the trails more often. And I'd love to explore more trails that are further away. But I have to work all week and that leaves me with my weekends. I also like to read, write, garden, hike, bike, strength train, I have other hobbies like woodworking that I'd love to get back into, homebrewing, I bake bread, and on and on. I love spending time with my wife and my kids and my/our friends. And I have to ration my time heavily because I've got ~50+ hours every single week that's wrapped up in making my staggeringly massive corporation employer more money than it knows what to reasonably do with.
I think the core disconnect here is that, to some degree, people have a hard time conceptualizing the difference between needing a job and wanting a job.
I can tell you, freely, that if someone dropped $10m in my lap, I would not stop programming - I started before I was paid, and I will continue as long as my input methods, perception, and/or brain permit.
The difference is in the quality, texture, and structure of how you work, and of course what you work on. I almost certainly would be working in the structure of larger organizations.
There is some interesting post-scarcity fiction out there, speculative and otherwise, that tries to answer the question "what do we do when we are no longer required to work for pay". Manfred Macx would say that it's great fun to make other people incalculably wealthy. Or, you could simply be kind and generous with your time in service to causes you like.
Frankly, if someone dropped $10m in my lap, I'd almost certainly take 2-3 months sitting on the beach, but after that, I'd try something even more ambitious. Surely there are hard problems we could be solving that we're constrained by paid work from pursuing.
I'd probably also expand my hobby practices - there's lots I could do with better tooling and toys (my pottery studio could use a pugmill!), and discover new ones as well.
Nobody who trades their labor for income would legitimately trust simply getting money for existing because we created such surplus. What happens if the checks stop rolling? It is undesirable to be that dependent on the state, in an environment where faith in institutions has declined. To give up labor is to give up any leverage one possibly has in our system.
in a post gun warfare world where the state has weapons far exceeding what is legal or really possible for a organized militia to hold this is a pipe dream. muskets used to be state of the art.
That is the reason why Oligarchs and Governments are salivating at AI. To make everyone dependent for a paycheck. Any dystopian fantasy can come true after that.
Why after that? AI hasn't even kicked in yet fully and we already have millions of engineers trembling in fear. Gone the golden days of techies demanding things, corpo is back with revenge.
>if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income
We've seen this play out twice in history now (industrial revolution, then globalization/offshoring). Every time the pitch has been that automation would make life easier by trickling down the surplus productivity gains. And yet here we are still working 5 days a week with more intense competition than ever. Fool me once...
And also most of what AI can automate today is the "services" economy which was never really that crucial in terms of biological existence. ChatGPT will not build housing, raise livestock, or perform surgery.
> we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
I wish we lived in this reality. After what's happened in the last 10-12 years (in the USA, specifically) I think a significant enough number of people would rather watch their neighbors starve than give them or vote to give them anything they "didn't earn".
> But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income. Then the concern is of course, that the owners will not share the produced value.
We have a few hundred years of tax policy and politics to draw on here.
I think most humans have some intrinsic desire to feel useful to their tribe, to feel like they earn their keep. I know people on the equivalent of UBI, and they're all miserable. I don't think we're wired to do nothing all day, and I don't think everyone has it in them to be self-motivated artists or craftspeople.
This is all just my personal experience, obviously. I don't have any data to back it up. But I know that even though my job bugs me sometimes, I'm a lot happier when I'm busy than not, and I work remotely. I like the feeling of accomplishment. But do I like it enough to build things for free? Probably not. I'd probably just sit around and spiral, like I've seen friends do on extended unemployment.
Anyway, this all is a moot point imo because as long as one person still has to work, the billionaire class will turn the "lazy freeloaders" on UBI into scapegoats. See: current politics.
> we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
This would never get approved in the USA. Think of the backlash here against "Obamaphones" and "welfare queens" - we can't even get paid parental leave approved! Let alone disability, social security or SNAP/food benefits. UBI is not even an option. Even now we're taking away food benefits and tying it to mandatory work- ie moving in the opposite direction. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/stricter-work-requirements-...
American voters are far too resistant against any sort of welfare and/or social assistance for UBI to ever be feasible.
Even during the great depression FDR was only able to get work for pay programs approved that assigned jobs like Conservation Corps, Public Works and WPA rather than just handing out cash. And to get that passed we needed widespread bank collapses, failed farms, starving people and catastrophic unemployment there was STILL heavy opposition to any/all government assistance programs because there is a very deep fear entrenched in the American psyche that government aid creates dependency and weakens individual responsibility.
There is a widespread false narrative in the USA that any sort of government help, assistance programs and/or payments is leftist socialism and communism.
This is a superficial complaint. In practice, the US doles out enormous amounts of social assistance. Disability, social security, and healthcare are an enormous part of the federal budget. Maybe it will be gated behind make-work or some other scheme.
> This is a superficial complaint. In practice, the US doles out enormous amounts of social assistance
Good point. So we should ask those people how the reliance on social assistance has really worked out for them. Do they generally feel respected and valued by the systems that pay them? Are they happy with the amount of assistance they receive?
But what about Japan? Sorry, I meant Germany. Sorry, I meant USSR. Vietnam? Iraq? Iraqistan, or was it Afghanistan? Iraq, yes! Russia, Russia! Oh, look, China!
It's all about the framing. Lots of people love the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but hate Obamacare, or demand politicians "keep your government hands off my Medicare" (non-US: "Obamacare" is the ACA; Medicare is another government healthcare program)
I don't know if it's possible to replicate this though.
Some want jobs because it's all they've known and they don't know what to do with themselves without one. I imagine some of these people would find things to do if they had more time and energy to spend on things other than recovering from/for their jobs.
Some have that answer because they think it is entirely unrealistic to create or have the idealistic society you describe. I am part of this group. There are many things I have on my backlog that I'd like to accomplish, but too much of the required time and energy is taken up by my job. Yet, I still hold onto it desperately, because the alternative is much worse, and I have no way of fixing that.
> and just do what I want to do all day, stress free, for the rest of my life...
In a saner society, jobs would be the measure of how we are mutually useful and bound to each other, and UBI would be there so that people are not coerced with freezing and starvation into doing things. But, when was the last time people got to negotiate the social contract at such a deep level? The French Revolution? Maybe the Bolsheviks? If we could, would we be able to do a good job of setting up something like that? When one remembers that the biggest democracy on the planet keeps electing Trump, one loses hope.
How do you envision that playing out? It would basically be like everyone that didn’t still have a job living off minimum wage. Would no one be allowed to work also?
So I would envision that, as AI starts to makes jobs obsolete, the people whose jobs were made obsolete, would get some sort of balanced percentage of what they were making. The more they were making the lower the percentage would be. But it would balance to around median/average, so if you were making current median, this is around what you would still get. So it should not go under that. If you were making 3x median, maybe it would be 80% - 90% of that. To be able to still incentivise automation, but keep people's quality of life without drastic changes. I haven't thought this through, so these are just initial ideas. But main ideas would be to keep income level similar, while trying to find them other things to do.
Initially they would get it under some conditions that they might be studying something else or whatever else makes sense productivity wise. Ultimately not minimum wage.
Depending on how fast AI would automate things, the balance should change, but ultimately income should provide similar quality of life as was before, but increasing as time goes on for the less fortunate who were making less before.
So if someone who is making 3x median now, they might be getting 2.3x while doing nothing, and 2.7x while learning/doing something else productive. Someone who was making 1x median, would still get 1x median, but as AI produced value increases and more replacement happens, the 1x should climb and eventually e.g. in 10 years everyone's would equalize in such a way that no one's quality of life due to job displacement shouldn't suffer, but who previously had lower income would reach similar levels of income gradually as all jobs are replaced.
And you would be allowed to work or switch work if you wanted, but there would be some sort of formula for decreasing what you get, while still incentivising you to work if you want to. E.g. if you were making 3x being a software engineer and want to take up hand crafting something or construction, you could but, you might be maxed at getting total of what you were making before, so construction + bonus could make up to only 3x.
Productive in which ways? I wouldn't be producing value for the society right, because AI would be doing that. But I could be doing things for my physical/mental health, right?
Other things could be just satisfying own curiosity, sports, hobbies, video games, films, books, shows. Kind of like being able to be child again?
> But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income
Why would I ever believe that this would happen at all though? I don't trust the people making decisions to actually do this
And even if they do, what does that look like for me? I find it difficult to believe that we would live unchanged. Are we talking nice urban apartments, big suburban houses, or shitty cyberpunk megacity apartment habs?
My sense of worth is tied to the work I do because the work I do can provide the income to afford the life I want and choose to live. Which is probably very different from the lifestyle that will "be provided for me" under a UBI plan
>But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
That would be very nice, but,
Will not happen in the US. For example in the US, minimum wage. That was suppose to be the minimum people needed to get by. Now with factoring in inflation, minimum wage does not pay for hardly anything now.
So in the US, if AI does what some people think it will do, we will end up with 2 classes. A small very rich class, probably segregated from everyone else, and a huge very poor class, maybe something like this:
Has it ever occured to you, presumably, a white collar worker, to "give back" to others less fortunate than you? With your presumably, well-above earnings, does it ever cross your mind to give a recurring stipend to some other people, even though it could make a real difference to someone?
I personally do have a monthly automatic donation set in the bank, it's not a lot, but I wouldn't say it hasn't occurred to me. I do try to save money for specific things however, if I made more and I didn't save e.g. I for sure would be happy to increase what I give monthly. My goal is to be able to do whatever I want, so for that reason I'm trying to save. Whatever I want would also likely be valuable to society (until AGI), and if I made more thanks to that, I wouldn't have problem sharing more.
We’ve been there for nearly thirty years. We make more than enough food for everyone on earth. Yet it hasn’t happened. Why? Now ask if you and me getting fired changes the answer.
I want a job because I need to pay the bills, as you said. But also, I like my job. It is a big part of my life, and I truly love what I do. Moreover, this is the one job skill I have, so if this career dies I'll have to resort to manual labor and the like. My job going away is an extremely unpleasant prospect for many reasons.
> But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
There isn't the remotest possible chance that this would happen. Any surplus (if indeed one exists, which isn't certain) would be pocketed by the mega rich who own the corporations.
That's easy to explain. We live in a society that will absolutely NOT do that. We will let people starve and die on the streets like it's some personal moral failure while we start minting trillionaires. Your job is food, water, shelter, transportation, health insurance, education and everything for your children.
There is an alternate reality where the benefits of automation are shread with society so that we don't have to work as much, collectively. But in the US in particular, that's "communism".
We are (IMHO) bouldering a future that I can only describe as neo-feudalism where nobody owns anything and the only housing and jobs are working on the estates of trillionaires, a techno-serf if you will. The intermediate stage is probably fascist apartheid states with ever-shrinking in-groups where an increasingly militarized police force is used to enforce order as wealth inequality spirals out of control.
Google has ~190k employees (according to Google) and an annual profit of $133 billion. So despite a bunch of people being comparatively well-paid, the profit per employee is still ~$700k. There were times when that was well over $1 million. So by other measures, you're still being underpaid at ~$500k+/year.
If the US did not spend more than ever Western country combined on "Defense", and stuck to just, IDK, 75% of every Western country combined, we could do it today. At a bare minimum, we could eliminate homelessness and starvation, today. But we live in a society that believes cronie capitalism for capitalism's sake is more important than people's lives, because of the off chance some of them might be "lazy". UBI is never going to happen.
You could completely eliminate US defense spending and you would only be able provide every individual with roughly $3000 annually.
Also, your comparison to other countries is confounded by the fact that Western countries (i.e. Europe) maintain a low level of defense spending because they have an explicit guarantee of defense under the North Atlantic treaty and a promise of being covered by the US’s nuclear umbrella. If the US were to cut defense spending, other Western countries would need to substantially increase their own.
I'm not from the US, but the reason to want to have jobs is disbelief that UBI could not happen then? If there was a way to make grounds to get to UBI, would it be fine?
I do believe there's going to be a lot of left-behinds, as a sort-of digital rust belt. Even though, as an industry, we've always been in the business of automating and replacing ourselves, the shift will hit too quick.
I lay none of the blame on AI the technology, and all the blame on AI as a mindset and excuse.
Layoffs are not due to AI, but it's a convenient excuse: "more productive, don't need people, we're firing on all cylinders and yeah, firing 20% of the workforce while we're at it". Everything else being equal, the "more productive so we earn 20%" counterfactual makes more sense - but of course, not everything else is equal.
Treadmill speed will increase, no doubt. We haven't lowered working hours from 40 to 20 when computers 2x'd us all, we for sure won't lower them now.
We'll manage the nondeterministic imperfections, but boy, will there be bumps on the road.
What I fear most: AI will give us all more power. This includes profitmaxxing no-holds-barred corpos, from preseed startups hustling 996-style to big multinacionals. Even now, with locked-down devices and subscriptions for everything and owning things replaced with "owning a limited nontransferrable revokable end-user license", it's not good. AI is going to multiply that.
Programmers are more impacted now than manufacturing were because they identify with work?
The better prior is when manufacturing or office workers had to take on the job of outsourcing or automating away the work of others, because it highlights the guilt of knowing that it's not good for others, but it's temporarily good for you. Normally we try to expand our concern to our neighbor, but sometimes we have to put on the blinders. It's not fun to pull up the ladder you climbed.
The sweet spot of delivering productivity enhancement is when something that was previously too costly now becomes economically feasible -- so you're helping new products/services. It's doubly good because you're not just working/extracting on a value stream, you're creating a new one. Best to aim for that.
"A separate strand of research frames resistance to AI itself as an identity-protective response, where workers push back against the technology because it threatens how they understand who they are."
I'm sure people are sad about a changing relationship to their craft, but make no mistake, the biggest sadness people are experiencing in and out of tech is not having a place in society.
Funny that things are discussed in HN only when "Tech Workers" are affected.
Artists feel the same about AI, it is probably much worse for them. Computer was a job before becoming a machine. And IT has been automating jobs out of existence ever since.
Framing the job losses and anxiety as grief is counterproductive. It makes for a longer article because you can shoehorn everything in the infamous and frankly ridiculous "five stages" meme.
The article does push back occasionally, but ends with the students booing Schmidt interpreted as expressing "their grief".
No! That is harmful propaganda. They were expressing their agency and anger at someone who worked 6 years as a programmer, screwed up the Lex rewrite, went straight into management at Sun in 1983 and later moved on to Google.
Now he is rich, can escape to Cyprus any time and lectures the young about where programming is going. How would Schmidt with his buggy Lex know what being a programmer is?
You need more anger, not this grief nonsense that is just designed to weaken you.
If it was written by an actual subject matter expert instead of a "performance marketing and paid social media director" it would probably be valuable, as then one could be assured there was some sort of quality control going on.
If someone had written it. It's well curated slop, but it's still slop. Consider this bit:
> A profession does not need to be eliminated to be mourned. It is enough for its center to fall out, leaving the people who built careers in that center with credentials that no longer map to a stable role. When AI threatens the work, it threatens the self, which is why the response looks less like ordinary job-loss fear and more like a form of bereavement.
I'm certain that section was mostly constructed by an LLM. It reads well, but when you actually focus on what it's saying there's nothing there.
I was not enlightened by reading that. No human sat thinking deeply about the situation, constructed their own mental model of what was happening, then put effort into transferring that mental model into my brain so I could be similarly enlightened. They had Claude (probably) express a conclusion that was attached to nothing more than what would statistically sound "deep".
Hacker News is surprisingly tolerant of slop these days. I expect to be downvoted for this, because comments highlighting slop are usually downvoted. So it goes.
The whole thing is unbelievable slop ! I think the whole article is llm-generated unfortunately (just reading the first paragraph I got an immediate smell).
>>> For a cognitive professional, expertise is not only an activity. It is a large part of the self. A data scientist who has spent a decade building statistical judgment does not experience that judgment as a detachable tool. It is closer to a personality trait.
Total BS. Top-to-bottom offensive, elitist junk masquerading as logic. Written by someone who has never spent an afternoon with a farmer, with a cop, with a fisherman, a professional musician, a pilot or any manner of soldier. Some professions dictate one's entire life. Software engineer is not one of them.
You can be a software engineer 9 to 5 and be something else on weekends. Ask a farmer what they do on weekends. 99 time out of 100 it will be something on a farm. Ask a pilot and they will ask which hotel they are staying in and when thier next flight is schedualed. Ask a soldier and the will ask whether they are on recall. Some professions have days off, others do not. Those are the ones that define a person's life and personality.
Lol. "Déformation professionnelle" is an elitist junk these days. It's a defect, and I would gladly get rid my brain of all this programming bullshit if my life didn't depend on it and I wouldn't hear from every fucking corner how:
1) During 2010-2015 Indians/Eastern Europeans/Outsource agencies are going to replace me
2) During 2015-2022 Bootcampers/kids working for a bowl of rice/laid off journalists are going to replace me
3) 2024+ AI is going put me on the street
You seriously think living in a perpetual fear and constant arms race with Leetcode/System Design/other devs/AI is elitist? Fuck off.
How did you get any of that from the comment above? I thought the elitism they were referring to is the the assumption that other jobs don't also have equally deep impacts on a person's identity and way of being.
The part about existing outside of work - that's just reality though. A lot of coders are just doing it to support their families, and a lot of them aren't doing a side hustle or side projects when they're off the 9-5. That stuff gets normalized and glamorized in the highly-compensated-engineering-for-cool-tech-company scene, but there really are working coders who don't do any of that and get by fine all the same. They just tend to live in uncool cities and work in uncool industries.
Then quit doing it. I am legally not allowed to quit my job. I do not have that priviledge. If i dont go to work they will send police to make me. To say that software development is somehow special, more impactful on one's life and personality, than that is indeed very elitist.
I don't think you will get much sympathy by dismissing the anxiety of others, I doubt your job give you special neural receptors that make the cortisol hit different.
During Covid, we, the intellectual class, spent our year lamenting, explaining, meme-Ing, about what a change it was. Meanwhile, every day, billions of poorer people got up and went to their jobs as normal. I’m in lockdown and Grace, the grocery store clerk, is going to work just like any other day, just in a mask.
We’re up in arms about AI. We’re asking what does a future where AI can do all the work look like. Where fantasizing about the end of capitalism or fearing the dark futures.
We believe that our jobs matter. That the destruction of our jobs will start a revolution. That we matter.
AI grief is our class realizing that our future is that of those grocery store clerks, and that we did nothing for grocery store clerks when we had money and influence, and no one will do anything for us.
AI should be only used for activities that Humans can't do. Replacing humans just for reducing cost should be illegal. In fact we should make LLM use illegal for everything that is not at the forefront of scientific / math discoveries.
The underlying issue here is the same as why I am generally opposed to large governments, entitlement programs, etc.
In the case of jobs, we are already overly dependent on individual incomes just to get by. We've collectively outsourced nearly everything a person needs to actually survive, choosing to pay for everything rather than know how to do it ourselves or go without. A tiny fraction of people today are involved in food production, and most of us don't know how the food is produced, processed, or stored. We don't know how to make our own cloths, fix an electrical or plumbing issue in our own home, or maintain our own vehicles yet we depend on all of these.
Insurance programs are much the same, though when those leave you high and dry its generally much more impactful than when you can't get a toilet fixed in short order. To their credit, some Democrats tried to warn us of the risks of tying health care to jobs and many Democrats tried to design a better system even if they didn't or couldn't explain the risks necessitating it. Now the tech industry is feeling the pain of all this centralization and dependence.
The story this article begins with is tragic, though the fact that we collectively are okay with, and even feel entitled to, being so dependent on various insurance programs is similarly tragic in my opinion.
We need to change the core of what our systems are based on today for any meaning, long lasting change to happen. We can keep duct taping the tears along the edges but it will continue to fail, and usually the failures become more painful and more frequent when we just look for more quick fixes.
How so? If your argument or assumption is that civilization is directly linked to dependence and individual helplessness that seems like a terrible long term strategy.
I don't agree that civilization demands dependence, by the way. We can choose to buy food from someone else while knowing how we would do it ourselves, ideally with some experience. We can buy our food from someone local, reducing our dependence by shrinking the loop is a huge improvement on what we have today.
I wasn't arguing that specialization is bad or evil, but I would argue that too much specialization can lead to a fragile system.
Quotes from the article:
'Work as Identity: The Foundation'
Knowledge workers hold a different relationship to their labor than manufacturing workers did. For a cognitive professional, expertise is not only an activity. It is a large part of the self. A data scientist who has spent a decade building statistical judgment does not experience that judgment as a detachable tool. It is closer to a personality trait. When automation threatens the work, it reaches past the income and touches the identity.'
Excerpt from the article above. It heavily leans on Reddit quotes, articles posted on Reddit and the number of upvotes to backup or sustain certain arguments. But I found the article informative, and publishing a message and a feeling I've been struggling to describe, write or externalise. Hope it's helpful or at least interesting to us here.
Apparently my feelings of disillusionment, confusion, anxiety, failing self esteem and occasionally anger or frustration from AI has a name that's starting to be written and formalised. Though not yet accepted either informally or formally, but it's starting a conversation which I'm thankful for, _Artificial Intelligence Replacement Dysfunction_. From the article:
"In September 2025, two psychiatrists at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Stephanie McNamara and Joseph E. Thornton, published a paper in the journal Cureus proposing a new construct they call Artificial Intelligence Replacement Dysfunction, or AIRD."
I'll be sharing this article with my psychologist when we meet in a few weeks.
The article author, according to their site's About page, is a "a performance marketing and paid social media director". While that doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinion, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in it either, particularly whether it accurately describes what's happening in the software industry.
Similar to LLM smells in writing, anyone that blogs about Reddit comments to make broad extrapolations about society or psychology or anything really…I just write it off as slop.
They’re low effort takes from terminally online weirdos. The number of upvotes something gets is meaningless. Using it as some kind of appeal to authority or credibility on a topic is a joke.
Like those SEO slop gaming articles about “controversies” because some anonymous account on Reddit complained that a character got race swapped or something.
This crap gets pulled into Google search results and gets repeated as truth by Gemini when it does a web search.
It’s gross.
The idea that skilled people who work with their hands don't identify with their work is laughable.
I’m not sure people working on an assembly line in a factory is defining themselves as their work task. Someone working in a factory mounting IPhone screens probably don’t make their job their identity the same way a designer, developer, author does.
(Of course there are manual jobs that people have as their identity.)
Yes, and this is something that is routinely overlooked. Work identities run deep, and they are not easily changed.
Andrew Yang actually made a strong point when he was talking about automation-driven job losses way back in 2019. He said you can offer the best and most expensive retraining programs imaginable to help people displaced from their jobs move to fields like healthcare - but most truck drivers, even if out of work, will never even consider retaining to work as a nurse. Identities are not as malleable to the whims of supply and demand as some might want to believe.
OP did not say anything about skilled workers who make things with their hands. You are describing an artisan or craftsman, or at the very least a tradesman.
The quote is talking about manufacturing labor. This is the guy on the assembly line who lowers the press, makes his thousandth widget for a day, and then lifts it up. Rinse and repeat.
One tiny nanoscopic nitpick, because i agree with you mostly, programming is often creating wider things (abstractions, frameworks). I think it hits a different part compared to most jobs. Maybe... i'm not sure, but that's how i feel compared to other manual occupations that i loved too.
It's also reflective of the author living in a very small bubble. It's quite a shame that chose to include that as I think the article is otherwise relevant and pertinent, but it colors the whole thing.
I've been calling it Deep Blue: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/15/deep-blue/
So you are saying in the end of that piece that chess players came out stronger?
You know how? Because AI is forbidden in tournaments and there are plenty of idle rich sponsors in Chess (it is popular among autocrats).
So you are envisioning a future of software development where we have coding competitions sponsored by MBS where AI is forbidden?
Like your Pelican meme, which is designed to cutify AI, this is propaganda of the highest order.
Hahaha, this is the first time I've seen the pelican thing described as "propaganda"!
One of the main reasons I do the pelican thing is that it's making fun of the industry:
1. The smartest model in the world still draws pelicans riding bicycles worse than a five year old.
2. It highlights how absurd the task of comparing these models is. Oh, so it scored 78 on Terminal Bench 2.1? It also drew a crap pelican.
> So you are saying in the end of that piece that chess players came out stronger?
That was an off-the-cuff remark on the podcast which I included in the transcript. It's not my overall thesis.
I believe that the average elo of players is increasing since powerful chess AI / Go AI.
Elo is zero sum. Each point gained by one player is lost by another. It follows that the mean elo is always exactly equal to the initial elo assigned to new players before they play any games, and can't change over time. If the highest ranked player are higher elo than before, the lower ranked players must be lower elo.
>Elo is zero sum.
In a closed, static pool only.
Right, but you have to give the new players some rating, and as long as that number remains constant it will also be the mean Elo. Therefore, "new players entering the pool" can't cause a rise in mean Elo. As for lower rated players leaving, that could indeed raise the mean (assuming you stop counting them in the average), but that changes the point from "players have gotten better because of AI" to "worse players are more likely to just give up on chess because of AI", which is a significantly less optimistic picture IMO.
Was the average ELO of players approximately stable before chess engines?
Yes chess players are stronger thanks to AI. Which is why every high level chess player trains with AI, even if it's banned in actual tournaments
I am probably different to most people, but I always have trouble understanding why people want to have jobs so much. The obvious and direct answer immediately of course is "to be able to pay the bills".
But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
Then the concern is of course, that the owners will not share the produced value.
But the answer to that in my view is that we should rather do work to be able reach a society where this value will be shared, and not rely on "jobs" being the key thing ultimately.
If I could choose, I would rather not work, and just do what I want to do all day, stress free, for the rest of my life. Also what is the point of doing the same jobs generation after generation? Most of the jobs in modern world aren't really what fit our evolutionary primitive desires in the first place, and it's forced stress.
I think for me it's hard to conceptualize what "do what I want to do all day, stress free, for the rest of my life." really means. Maybe it's just because i've been conditioned since a child to expect to "work" and "do things", but periods of my life where i've had that similar amount of freedom have always felt somewhat aimless and purposeless to me. But would i feel that way if i had never felt the need to work and be productive? Not sure.
For me personally, having the right job is actually more interesting to me than doing whatever i want all day then given my conditioning. I think because without the job I wouldn't have the same opportunity to encounter the "problems" i enjoy "solving" at work with critical thinking. It's kinda like training for a sport? Sometimes having a competition or a game is a nice forcing function to make it all feel real?
I could think of so many fun things to do. Sports, video games, building things for fun specifically, learning, films, books, shows, travelling, being with family, etc. You could still do competitive sports in different avenues right. I feel like I could focus so much more on health and wellbeing, and things that I actually enjoy etc. It's not like in grand scheme of things any job realistically matters, except for the paycheck it brings me. I'd rather have humanity reach new levels where we discover something new about universe, but for that we'd have to evolve via tech, than people doing the same job over and over. What other tech besides AI could take us there?
I agree with you completely, but I also have never been able to square the idea of how any of that stuff would still exist if we didn't have jobs.
Sports (in some aspects) needs facilities, gear, arenas, other people to participate with. Building things usually requires materials (unless you're bushcrafting) that requires a fully-functioning supply chain. Video games and shows and films (at the quality level we expect them to be) require herculean efforts from thousands of people each, and massive investments, to go from concept to completion. Travel in and of itself is predicated on the ideas that the hospitality industry exists, infrastructure for flight, rail, bus, car all exist (and are operational), that the very people that are the fabric and heartbeat of the culture you're traveling to experience exist, and are operating restaurants, businesses, etc.
Every leisure activity that we think of occupying our time with instead of a job requires the collective efforts of the rest of society to even exist, and kind of implies that your ability to lead a life of leisure is an anomaly. Some things can arguably be replaced with AI and robots, but the texture and tactility that we crave from most of these activities would be gone. Traveling to Scotland to get a plate of haggis and hang out in a pub just wouldn't be the same if your driverless taxi took you to the unmanned airport full of kiosks and humanoid sentries, to be loaded half-conscious into a metal tube and flown across the planet, ultimately driven to the ends of the Earth and dropped off at a 600 year old crumbling building where you're met by R2-D2 wearing a kilt and a tam o'shanter, talking like Groundskeeper Willie LOL
If AI replaced jobs one by one, these things should still have to exist, right?
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I would still see all of this existing and even more due to demand. The idea with automation would be that everything that people want would still be there and even more. I would think we build more football stadiums, more hobby facilities, replacing business offices and other things we don't need with those.
I would also see e.g. video games being even greater than they are now, because people would be able to follow their passion and creativity and build games that won't require monetization and are unaffected by outside pressure. I have massive amount of video game ideas that I think would be super awesome, but not really easily monetizable. I would probably build a lot of them, especially with being able to do those so much faster with AI. If AI can do all the games by itself and doesn't require my or anyone's creativity, then super, I will just play them, because by definition they have to be better than anything so far, and if they are not, then by definition human creativity still matters there and they can build, either way seems good to me.
As for travel, I think there would be people out there doing this out of hobby, having pubs as a hobby thing, hosting people as a hobby, spreading their existing culture out of passion, not because they need to make money. I would actually prefer that type of travel over feeling like they only act friendly to me because I will be paying to them. In this case it would be visiting people who want you to visit them with no exchange of anything, both sides would be doing it out of curiosity or desire.
I just got back from a 12 mile trail run. I'd love to be on the trails more often. And I'd love to explore more trails that are further away. But I have to work all week and that leaves me with my weekends. I also like to read, write, garden, hike, bike, strength train, I have other hobbies like woodworking that I'd love to get back into, homebrewing, I bake bread, and on and on. I love spending time with my wife and my kids and my/our friends. And I have to ration my time heavily because I've got ~50+ hours every single week that's wrapped up in making my staggeringly massive corporation employer more money than it knows what to reasonably do with.
I think the core disconnect here is that, to some degree, people have a hard time conceptualizing the difference between needing a job and wanting a job.
I can tell you, freely, that if someone dropped $10m in my lap, I would not stop programming - I started before I was paid, and I will continue as long as my input methods, perception, and/or brain permit.
The difference is in the quality, texture, and structure of how you work, and of course what you work on. I almost certainly would be working in the structure of larger organizations.
There is some interesting post-scarcity fiction out there, speculative and otherwise, that tries to answer the question "what do we do when we are no longer required to work for pay". Manfred Macx would say that it's great fun to make other people incalculably wealthy. Or, you could simply be kind and generous with your time in service to causes you like.
Frankly, if someone dropped $10m in my lap, I'd almost certainly take 2-3 months sitting on the beach, but after that, I'd try something even more ambitious. Surely there are hard problems we could be solving that we're constrained by paid work from pursuing.
I'd probably also expand my hobby practices - there's lots I could do with better tooling and toys (my pottery studio could use a pugmill!), and discover new ones as well.
Nobody who trades their labor for income would legitimately trust simply getting money for existing because we created such surplus. What happens if the checks stop rolling? It is undesirable to be that dependent on the state, in an environment where faith in institutions has declined. To give up labor is to give up any leverage one possibly has in our system.
> What happens if the checks stop rolling
Late 18th century France
in a post gun warfare world where the state has weapons far exceeding what is legal or really possible for a organized militia to hold this is a pipe dream. muskets used to be state of the art.
Let's hope if it comes to that sort of action, we do it before the noble class has easy and free access to autonomous terminator robots
Sure, but wouldn't the leverage of labor go to zero regardless, in this full-automation scenario?
That is the reason why Oligarchs and Governments are salivating at AI. To make everyone dependent for a paycheck. Any dystopian fantasy can come true after that.
> Any dystopian fantasy can come true after that.
Why after that? AI hasn't even kicked in yet fully and we already have millions of engineers trembling in fear. Gone the golden days of techies demanding things, corpo is back with revenge.
>if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income
We've seen this play out twice in history now (industrial revolution, then globalization/offshoring). Every time the pitch has been that automation would make life easier by trickling down the surplus productivity gains. And yet here we are still working 5 days a week with more intense competition than ever. Fool me once...
And also most of what AI can automate today is the "services" economy which was never really that crucial in terms of biological existence. ChatGPT will not build housing, raise livestock, or perform surgery.
> we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
I wish we lived in this reality. After what's happened in the last 10-12 years (in the USA, specifically) I think a significant enough number of people would rather watch their neighbors starve than give them or vote to give them anything they "didn't earn".
> But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income. Then the concern is of course, that the owners will not share the produced value.
We have a few hundred years of tax policy and politics to draw on here.
I think most humans have some intrinsic desire to feel useful to their tribe, to feel like they earn their keep. I know people on the equivalent of UBI, and they're all miserable. I don't think we're wired to do nothing all day, and I don't think everyone has it in them to be self-motivated artists or craftspeople.
This is all just my personal experience, obviously. I don't have any data to back it up. But I know that even though my job bugs me sometimes, I'm a lot happier when I'm busy than not, and I work remotely. I like the feeling of accomplishment. But do I like it enough to build things for free? Probably not. I'd probably just sit around and spiral, like I've seen friends do on extended unemployment.
Anyway, this all is a moot point imo because as long as one person still has to work, the billionaire class will turn the "lazy freeloaders" on UBI into scapegoats. See: current politics.
> we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
This would never get approved in the USA. Think of the backlash here against "Obamaphones" and "welfare queens" - we can't even get paid parental leave approved! Let alone disability, social security or SNAP/food benefits. UBI is not even an option. Even now we're taking away food benefits and tying it to mandatory work- ie moving in the opposite direction. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/stricter-work-requirements-...
American voters are far too resistant against any sort of welfare and/or social assistance for UBI to ever be feasible.
Even during the great depression FDR was only able to get work for pay programs approved that assigned jobs like Conservation Corps, Public Works and WPA rather than just handing out cash. And to get that passed we needed widespread bank collapses, failed farms, starving people and catastrophic unemployment there was STILL heavy opposition to any/all government assistance programs because there is a very deep fear entrenched in the American psyche that government aid creates dependency and weakens individual responsibility.
There is a widespread false narrative in the USA that any sort of government help, assistance programs and/or payments is leftist socialism and communism.
This is a superficial complaint. In practice, the US doles out enormous amounts of social assistance. Disability, social security, and healthcare are an enormous part of the federal budget. Maybe it will be gated behind make-work or some other scheme.
> This is a superficial complaint. In practice, the US doles out enormous amounts of social assistance
Good point. So we should ask those people how the reliance on social assistance has really worked out for them. Do they generally feel respected and valued by the systems that pay them? Are they happy with the amount of assistance they receive?
The USA would rather pay half the population to dig holes and the other half to fill them in, than simply provide a basic standard of living for all.
The CCC and WPA produced a lot of valuable stuff that still stands today.
But what about Japan? Sorry, I meant Germany. Sorry, I meant USSR. Vietnam? Iraq? Iraqistan, or was it Afghanistan? Iraq, yes! Russia, Russia! Oh, look, China!
Knock, knock. Who's there? I ran.
It's all about the framing. Lots of people love the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but hate Obamacare, or demand politicians "keep your government hands off my Medicare" (non-US: "Obamacare" is the ACA; Medicare is another government healthcare program)
I don't know if it's possible to replicate this though.
Some want jobs because it's all they've known and they don't know what to do with themselves without one. I imagine some of these people would find things to do if they had more time and energy to spend on things other than recovering from/for their jobs.
Some have that answer because they think it is entirely unrealistic to create or have the idealistic society you describe. I am part of this group. There are many things I have on my backlog that I'd like to accomplish, but too much of the required time and energy is taken up by my job. Yet, I still hold onto it desperately, because the alternative is much worse, and I have no way of fixing that.
> and just do what I want to do all day, stress free, for the rest of my life...
In a saner society, jobs would be the measure of how we are mutually useful and bound to each other, and UBI would be there so that people are not coerced with freezing and starvation into doing things. But, when was the last time people got to negotiate the social contract at such a deep level? The French Revolution? Maybe the Bolsheviks? If we could, would we be able to do a good job of setting up something like that? When one remembers that the biggest democracy on the planet keeps electing Trump, one loses hope.
How do you envision that playing out? It would basically be like everyone that didn’t still have a job living off minimum wage. Would no one be allowed to work also?
So I would envision that, as AI starts to makes jobs obsolete, the people whose jobs were made obsolete, would get some sort of balanced percentage of what they were making. The more they were making the lower the percentage would be. But it would balance to around median/average, so if you were making current median, this is around what you would still get. So it should not go under that. If you were making 3x median, maybe it would be 80% - 90% of that. To be able to still incentivise automation, but keep people's quality of life without drastic changes. I haven't thought this through, so these are just initial ideas. But main ideas would be to keep income level similar, while trying to find them other things to do.
Initially they would get it under some conditions that they might be studying something else or whatever else makes sense productivity wise. Ultimately not minimum wage.
Depending on how fast AI would automate things, the balance should change, but ultimately income should provide similar quality of life as was before, but increasing as time goes on for the less fortunate who were making less before.
So if someone who is making 3x median now, they might be getting 2.3x while doing nothing, and 2.7x while learning/doing something else productive. Someone who was making 1x median, would still get 1x median, but as AI produced value increases and more replacement happens, the 1x should climb and eventually e.g. in 10 years everyone's would equalize in such a way that no one's quality of life due to job displacement shouldn't suffer, but who previously had lower income would reach similar levels of income gradually as all jobs are replaced.
And you would be allowed to work or switch work if you wanted, but there would be some sort of formula for decreasing what you get, while still incentivising you to work if you want to. E.g. if you were making 3x being a software engineer and want to take up hand crafting something or construction, you could but, you might be maxed at getting total of what you were making before, so construction + bonus could make up to only 3x.
> just do what I want to do all day
Are the things that you want to do productive in any way? A sizeable portion of people have an innate drive to "produce" actual value.
Productive in which ways? I wouldn't be producing value for the society right, because AI would be doing that. But I could be doing things for my physical/mental health, right?
Other things could be just satisfying own curiosity, sports, hobbies, video games, films, books, shows. Kind of like being able to be child again?
> But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income
Why would I ever believe that this would happen at all though? I don't trust the people making decisions to actually do this
And even if they do, what does that look like for me? I find it difficult to believe that we would live unchanged. Are we talking nice urban apartments, big suburban houses, or shitty cyberpunk megacity apartment habs?
My sense of worth is tied to the work I do because the work I do can provide the income to afford the life I want and choose to live. Which is probably very different from the lifestyle that will "be provided for me" under a UBI plan
>But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
That would be very nice, but,
Will not happen in the US. For example in the US, minimum wage. That was suppose to be the minimum people needed to get by. Now with factoring in inflation, minimum wage does not pay for hardly anything now.
So in the US, if AI does what some people think it will do, we will end up with 2 classes. A small very rich class, probably segregated from everyone else, and a huge very poor class, maybe something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporated_(TV_series)
Has it ever occured to you, presumably, a white collar worker, to "give back" to others less fortunate than you? With your presumably, well-above earnings, does it ever cross your mind to give a recurring stipend to some other people, even though it could make a real difference to someone?
Not really? I guess you got your answer.
I personally do have a monthly automatic donation set in the bank, it's not a lot, but I wouldn't say it hasn't occurred to me. I do try to save money for specific things however, if I made more and I didn't save e.g. I for sure would be happy to increase what I give monthly. My goal is to be able to do whatever I want, so for that reason I'm trying to save. Whatever I want would also likely be valuable to society (until AGI), and if I made more thanks to that, I wouldn't have problem sharing more.
We’ve been there for nearly thirty years. We make more than enough food for everyone on earth. Yet it hasn’t happened. Why? Now ask if you and me getting fired changes the answer.
I want a job because I need to pay the bills, as you said. But also, I like my job. It is a big part of my life, and I truly love what I do. Moreover, this is the one job skill I have, so if this career dies I'll have to resort to manual labor and the like. My job going away is an extremely unpleasant prospect for many reasons.
> But of course if we automated those jobs with AI, we could direct AI produced value into universal basic income so people wouldn't lose their income.
There isn't the remotest possible chance that this would happen. Any surplus (if indeed one exists, which isn't certain) would be pocketed by the mega rich who own the corporations.
That's easy to explain. We live in a society that will absolutely NOT do that. We will let people starve and die on the streets like it's some personal moral failure while we start minting trillionaires. Your job is food, water, shelter, transportation, health insurance, education and everything for your children.
There is an alternate reality where the benefits of automation are shread with society so that we don't have to work as much, collectively. But in the US in particular, that's "communism".
We are (IMHO) bouldering a future that I can only describe as neo-feudalism where nobody owns anything and the only housing and jobs are working on the estates of trillionaires, a techno-serf if you will. The intermediate stage is probably fascist apartheid states with ever-shrinking in-groups where an increasingly militarized police force is used to enforce order as wealth inequality spirals out of control.
Google has ~190k employees (according to Google) and an annual profit of $133 billion. So despite a bunch of people being comparatively well-paid, the profit per employee is still ~$700k. There were times when that was well over $1 million. So by other measures, you're still being underpaid at ~$500k+/year.
If the US did not spend more than ever Western country combined on "Defense", and stuck to just, IDK, 75% of every Western country combined, we could do it today. At a bare minimum, we could eliminate homelessness and starvation, today. But we live in a society that believes cronie capitalism for capitalism's sake is more important than people's lives, because of the off chance some of them might be "lazy". UBI is never going to happen.
You could completely eliminate US defense spending and you would only be able provide every individual with roughly $3000 annually.
Also, your comparison to other countries is confounded by the fact that Western countries (i.e. Europe) maintain a low level of defense spending because they have an explicit guarantee of defense under the North Atlantic treaty and a promise of being covered by the US’s nuclear umbrella. If the US were to cut defense spending, other Western countries would need to substantially increase their own.
I'm not from the US, but the reason to want to have jobs is disbelief that UBI could not happen then? If there was a way to make grounds to get to UBI, would it be fine?
I do believe there's going to be a lot of left-behinds, as a sort-of digital rust belt. Even though, as an industry, we've always been in the business of automating and replacing ourselves, the shift will hit too quick.
I lay none of the blame on AI the technology, and all the blame on AI as a mindset and excuse.
Layoffs are not due to AI, but it's a convenient excuse: "more productive, don't need people, we're firing on all cylinders and yeah, firing 20% of the workforce while we're at it". Everything else being equal, the "more productive so we earn 20%" counterfactual makes more sense - but of course, not everything else is equal.
Treadmill speed will increase, no doubt. We haven't lowered working hours from 40 to 20 when computers 2x'd us all, we for sure won't lower them now.
We'll manage the nondeterministic imperfections, but boy, will there be bumps on the road.
What I fear most: AI will give us all more power. This includes profitmaxxing no-holds-barred corpos, from preseed startups hustling 996-style to big multinacionals. Even now, with locked-down devices and subscriptions for everything and owning things replaced with "owning a limited nontransferrable revokable end-user license", it's not good. AI is going to multiply that.
Damn, now I need a drink.
Good grief!
Programmers are more impacted now than manufacturing were because they identify with work?
The better prior is when manufacturing or office workers had to take on the job of outsourcing or automating away the work of others, because it highlights the guilt of knowing that it's not good for others, but it's temporarily good for you. Normally we try to expand our concern to our neighbor, but sometimes we have to put on the blinders. It's not fun to pull up the ladder you climbed.
The sweet spot of delivering productivity enhancement is when something that was previously too costly now becomes economically feasible -- so you're helping new products/services. It's doubly good because you're not just working/extracting on a value stream, you're creating a new one. Best to aim for that.
There is a name for it, it’s called an “existential crisis.”
Great comment, just one suggestion: call it "mental health problem" and then the terms is even less precise than your suggestion! /s
"A separate strand of research frames resistance to AI itself as an identity-protective response, where workers push back against the technology because it threatens how they understand who they are."
Great read.
I'm sure people are sad about a changing relationship to their craft, but make no mistake, the biggest sadness people are experiencing in and out of tech is not having a place in society.
Funny that things are discussed in HN only when "Tech Workers" are affected.
Artists feel the same about AI, it is probably much worse for them. Computer was a job before becoming a machine. And IT has been automating jobs out of existence ever since.
This has been going for centuries.
Framing the job losses and anxiety as grief is counterproductive. It makes for a longer article because you can shoehorn everything in the infamous and frankly ridiculous "five stages" meme.
The article does push back occasionally, but ends with the students booing Schmidt interpreted as expressing "their grief".
No! That is harmful propaganda. They were expressing their agency and anger at someone who worked 6 years as a programmer, screwed up the Lex rewrite, went straight into management at Sun in 1983 and later moved on to Google.
Now he is rich, can escape to Cyprus any time and lectures the young about where programming is going. How would Schmidt with his buggy Lex know what being a programmer is?
You need more anger, not this grief nonsense that is just designed to weaken you.
How utterly pointless.
AI slop posing as “commentary” on the AI crisis.
Yeah, they tried hard to sound academic at the outset but the repeated references to Reddit vote counts was an obvious tell.
> How utterly pointless.
What would make it less pointless in your opinion?
If it was written by an actual subject matter expert instead of a "performance marketing and paid social media director" it would probably be valuable, as then one could be assured there was some sort of quality control going on.
If someone had written it. It's well curated slop, but it's still slop. Consider this bit:
> A profession does not need to be eliminated to be mourned. It is enough for its center to fall out, leaving the people who built careers in that center with credentials that no longer map to a stable role. When AI threatens the work, it threatens the self, which is why the response looks less like ordinary job-loss fear and more like a form of bereavement.
I'm certain that section was mostly constructed by an LLM. It reads well, but when you actually focus on what it's saying there's nothing there.
I was not enlightened by reading that. No human sat thinking deeply about the situation, constructed their own mental model of what was happening, then put effort into transferring that mental model into my brain so I could be similarly enlightened. They had Claude (probably) express a conclusion that was attached to nothing more than what would statistically sound "deep".
Hacker News is surprisingly tolerant of slop these days. I expect to be downvoted for this, because comments highlighting slop are usually downvoted. So it goes.
Moaning about downvotes and Things These Days is tedious and your post would be improved by the absence of it.
No, it's important. Hacker News is tolerant of slop, and pointing out slop is not popular here.
I'm meta-complaining if you like, but it's a point that I'll stand by.
The whole thing is unbelievable slop ! I think the whole article is llm-generated unfortunately (just reading the first paragraph I got an immediate smell).
>>> For a cognitive professional, expertise is not only an activity. It is a large part of the self. A data scientist who has spent a decade building statistical judgment does not experience that judgment as a detachable tool. It is closer to a personality trait.
Total BS. Top-to-bottom offensive, elitist junk masquerading as logic. Written by someone who has never spent an afternoon with a farmer, with a cop, with a fisherman, a professional musician, a pilot or any manner of soldier. Some professions dictate one's entire life. Software engineer is not one of them.
You can be a software engineer 9 to 5 and be something else on weekends. Ask a farmer what they do on weekends. 99 time out of 100 it will be something on a farm. Ask a pilot and they will ask which hotel they are staying in and when thier next flight is schedualed. Ask a soldier and the will ask whether they are on recall. Some professions have days off, others do not. Those are the ones that define a person's life and personality.
> elitist junk masquerading as logic
Lol. "Déformation professionnelle" is an elitist junk these days. It's a defect, and I would gladly get rid my brain of all this programming bullshit if my life didn't depend on it and I wouldn't hear from every fucking corner how:
1) During 2010-2015 Indians/Eastern Europeans/Outsource agencies are going to replace me
2) During 2015-2022 Bootcampers/kids working for a bowl of rice/laid off journalists are going to replace me
3) 2024+ AI is going put me on the street
You seriously think living in a perpetual fear and constant arms race with Leetcode/System Design/other devs/AI is elitist? Fuck off.
How did you get any of that from the comment above? I thought the elitism they were referring to is the the assumption that other jobs don't also have equally deep impacts on a person's identity and way of being.
The part about existing outside of work - that's just reality though. A lot of coders are just doing it to support their families, and a lot of them aren't doing a side hustle or side projects when they're off the 9-5. That stuff gets normalized and glamorized in the highly-compensated-engineering-for-cool-tech-company scene, but there really are working coders who don't do any of that and get by fine all the same. They just tend to live in uncool cities and work in uncool industries.
Then quit doing it. I am legally not allowed to quit my job. I do not have that priviledge. If i dont go to work they will send police to make me. To say that software development is somehow special, more impactful on one's life and personality, than that is indeed very elitist.
I don't think you will get much sympathy by dismissing the anxiety of others, I doubt your job give you special neural receptors that make the cortisol hit different.
During Covid, we, the intellectual class, spent our year lamenting, explaining, meme-Ing, about what a change it was. Meanwhile, every day, billions of poorer people got up and went to their jobs as normal. I’m in lockdown and Grace, the grocery store clerk, is going to work just like any other day, just in a mask.
We’re up in arms about AI. We’re asking what does a future where AI can do all the work look like. Where fantasizing about the end of capitalism or fearing the dark futures.
We believe that our jobs matter. That the destruction of our jobs will start a revolution. That we matter.
AI grief is our class realizing that our future is that of those grocery store clerks, and that we did nothing for grocery store clerks when we had money and influence, and no one will do anything for us.
Elysium is the future, not Star Trek.
Stop trying to demoralize us.
Truth is downvoted. They are literally trying to break our spirits.
AI should be only used for activities that Humans can't do. Replacing humans just for reducing cost should be illegal. In fact we should make LLM use illegal for everything that is not at the forefront of scientific / math discoveries.
The underlying issue here is the same as why I am generally opposed to large governments, entitlement programs, etc.
In the case of jobs, we are already overly dependent on individual incomes just to get by. We've collectively outsourced nearly everything a person needs to actually survive, choosing to pay for everything rather than know how to do it ourselves or go without. A tiny fraction of people today are involved in food production, and most of us don't know how the food is produced, processed, or stored. We don't know how to make our own cloths, fix an electrical or plumbing issue in our own home, or maintain our own vehicles yet we depend on all of these.
Insurance programs are much the same, though when those leave you high and dry its generally much more impactful than when you can't get a toilet fixed in short order. To their credit, some Democrats tried to warn us of the risks of tying health care to jobs and many Democrats tried to design a better system even if they didn't or couldn't explain the risks necessitating it. Now the tech industry is feeling the pain of all this centralization and dependence.
The story this article begins with is tragic, though the fact that we collectively are okay with, and even feel entitled to, being so dependent on various insurance programs is similarly tragic in my opinion.
We need to change the core of what our systems are based on today for any meaning, long lasting change to happen. We can keep duct taping the tears along the edges but it will continue to fail, and usually the failures become more painful and more frequent when we just look for more quick fixes.
Uh, you realise what you are actually opposed to is sedentary civilisation itself? Specialisation is old dude.
How so? If your argument or assumption is that civilization is directly linked to dependence and individual helplessness that seems like a terrible long term strategy.
I don't agree that civilization demands dependence, by the way. We can choose to buy food from someone else while knowing how we would do it ourselves, ideally with some experience. We can buy our food from someone local, reducing our dependence by shrinking the loop is a huge improvement on what we have today.
I wasn't arguing that specialization is bad or evil, but I would argue that too much specialization can lead to a fragile system.