this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
110 points (99.1% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14452 readers
786 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I more-or-less believe this completely unironically. I know it doesnt stand to a critical lens, but like... all the people who are apparently worried about AI destroying your job; What do you do???? Every interaction ive had with AI just proves to me ELIZA would pass the turing test, and i dont understand what labor was being done if that can cut it.
I speak here as the email job guy and the answer is I know things that nobody bothers or can write down and as such is entirely out of reach for an AI to know about.
The counterquestion here is what does AI solve that a a deterministic approach could not? If humans have no say or weigh in the decision, shit's easily automated via just standard computer. No need for AI.
If a human is required, how do you replace them with an AI? What training data do you train the thing on once the world changes and there's no easily available data on how to handle it left?
Maybe its with hubris, but i dont think anthros-in-overalls jobs are economically automatable, even if God parted the clouds and delivered AGI unto the world tomorrow. On the simple basis that an AI & its robot bodies requires a massive industrialized supply chain of expensive, constant inputs, while human labor can be reproduced by fucking & the most "essential" jobs are done at poverty wages already. I dont think the business margins can hold such a wonderful proposition
They are trying really hard to get robotic arms and cameras to do our jobs at the factory.
And it just doesn't work. The parts are too variable, the robots are too finicky, and a human operator can quickly troubleshoot problems that a robot just completely freezes up on. Human operated machines always outperform, and in the end they add human operators back into their "automated" process to babysit the machine and do quality control on the parts it makes.
putting the human in the part of the job that humans are objectively bad at. pay close attention, every 1 in 1000 times something bad is going to happen and you'd better catch it! same reason self driving that requires driver intervention is worse than nothing
Exactly what i mean, and im not sure the prophesized fully-automated economy will ever occur. The climate is collapsing under from under us, and drone factory supply chains & datacenters are supposed to keep chugging along under the coming blackouts?
I've worked manual labor all my life for sustinence wages, and will continue to do so until my body gives out and i retire to a ditch. There is no possible enshittified robot leased from a tech company that can possibly do my job cheaper, because i repair myself with potatos and troubleshoot myself with homegrown drugs.
i used to be a junior programmer. LLMs as a technology are really good at two things in coding.
as it stands now, there is little reason to hire me now. a lot of what i have experience in is either in 1 or 2 and LLMs can just oneshot those. i may complete tasks in less iterations and carry understanding through, an LLM will iterate so much faster than me that it legitimately reduces headcount. why hire me when meatproxy67 can ask an LLM to do what i used to do.
there is no reason to hire the same number of programmers as before. everything may be sloppier and crappier now on the internet. that's okay because the actual value produced is greater despite lowered variable capital. (see constant vs variable capital)