this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
20 points (88.5% liked)

News

36773 readers
3040 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
20
Why AI hasn’t caused a job apocalypse — so far (www.nature.com)
submitted 1 day ago by bo5on@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/news@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lol, right before it cuts off it's says:

Much of the data is speculative

If you get rid of all the speculative "data" AI companies keep pushing, the actual data that's left says it's not worth what anyone is paying and there's no feasible way to make it profitable.

Every company that actually cuts workers for AI, loses money and has to hire the workers back.

Maybe someday it could replace workers, but investing in it before then is just lighting money on fire, once investor class realizes that and stops investing in it, it's going to crash the whole house of cards.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

They will make sure theres a safe exit for their capital

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (4 children)

No, the apocalypse is here, just ask any recent college graduate. AI is coming for their jobs first. In fact, I've heard many people claim that the output of their AI is just as good as an entry-level hire, so why hire anyone?

What happens 10 years from now, when AI hasn't measurably improved, but now all the humans who would have moved into those mid-level jobs aren't there to do it?

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As a new grad, I honestly feel like AI output is worse. It gets stuff wrong pretty frequently and even I, as a new grad, at least know enough to notice when it is wrong. These days I don't use it at all, cause reading the docs is faster and also more accurate (and also cause of all the other issues with AI too).

[–] dont_put_that_there@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can talk to a new grad today and she will remember what I told them when I ask them tomorrow! Truly marvelous

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well... sometimes. More often than the LLM!

[–] expr@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

Especially because part of the "art" (term used extremely loosely) of using an LLM is to frequently throw out its context (i.e, the input you've already given it) because of context rot.

I'd take a fresh grad any day of the week over the slop machines. Fresh grads are great.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is (will be) the real damage... the disruption of the intern→apprentice→intermediate→journeyman→senior software dev/architect pipeline. I mean, companies in general have always tried to shirk their duty (IMO) to take on mentoring, always pushing educational institutions to give them raw meat who can 'hit the ground running'; "AI" now gives them a new way to avoid in-house training and long-term commitment to their current and no-longer future employees.

[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The law field is already facing this. They took on many specialized tools to replace clerks and people hired to search case law. The people normally hired to do that work were the future lawyers hired by those very firms. The total pool of candidates to hire from shrunk and now they're having to fight over the reduced quality of candidates to keep many of the firms afloat.

Fewer trainees == fewer qualified hires in the future (duh).

It's back to a Tragedy of the Commons all over again. With all firms hiring and training lots of young lawyers, there were plenty of people to hire in the future. Then, each firm stopped training as many themselves to save money and get a personal advantage, which leads to a smaller future pool to work with for everyone. Rinse, wash, repeat across the industry and now there's a crisis.

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This actually opens up an opportunity for law firms who want to mentor lawyers all the way up from new-grad. As they will not experience the lawyer shortage as they-themselves trained them. You can even reach into the pre-grad pool by giving paid internships, then giving interns you like offer letters contingent on them graduating the following year.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Everyone thinks AI is bad at their own job specifically because they actually know their own job well enough to release how much AIs ability to do it is entierly superficial, this is the case for pretty much all jobs that its about to 'replace'. Unless it drastically improves we're going to end up with no entry level hires AND no AI that can do the job and everyones going to be fucked all round because they've gone off the deep end and expect everyone to be born with a decade of experience.

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I’ve heard many people claim that the output of their AI is just as good as an entry-level hire, so why hire anyone?

Entry-level hires are a net resource drain on a company. It takes significant time from another experienced employee to bring the entry-level hire up to speed. That net resource drain can last months or even a year+ depending on how specialized the knowledge is. The entry-level hire should become a mid-level employee after that, but the AI just never does.

What happens 10 years from now, when AI hasn’t measurably improved, but now all the humans who would have moved into those mid-level jobs aren’t there to do it?

They certainly hit harder after 10 years too! Even worse if a notable percentage of entry-level hires are outsourcing their thinking and aren't learning/improving.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Even so, thats their responsibillity. The alternative is fucking with employment standards and loopholes so they can import and have cheap slaves, they shouldnt be able to shirk hiring and training domestically, thats some bullshit

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tell that to programmers

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Programmer here. AI tools are neat, but not taking our jobs. What is taking our jobs is the normal business cycle and non-0 interest rates.

[–] org@lemmy.org -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is false. Ban the user.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Explain or go home.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Give it time. Not much time but give it time