Leading AI CEO is warning the tech could cause mass unemployment  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2025, 01:24:09 am
content: Quote

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2025, 01:28:11 am
content: When I keep seeing this headline with a random CEO behind it I start to see it as one of those corny "get it before its BANNED (or grandfathered)' advertisements that are used to market shady shitits like a synonym of something like "limited stock" "limited edition" "unknown lead time after stock is out" "get rich now or never"linking fear and sales

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2025, 08:47:12 am
content: Yeah, random attribution always smells unpleasant. Fortunately a named CEO of one of the world's leading AI labs has made a useful and correct statement - which should give pause for thought.Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei just said the quiet part out loud: thatnobody really knows how AI works.Fuller summary plus link to the original athttps://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/34/62/#subj46.1 people paying attention to decent sources and understanding how LLM technologyworksoperates won't be surprised.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2025, 09:00:15 am
content: well what i mean is how do you have a CEO say something about what their behind without it being an advertisement or scarvertizment (read between lines advertisement for target 'discrete' audience). Because you know that is how people will treat a dangerous thing, not with caution, but with 'get in loophole before it closes'a warning about mass unemployment is actually an advertisement for getting rid of your employeess. how else is a quarter to quarter business guy gonna interpret this?I interpret it as "next quarter is gonna kick ASS if we get this stuff"!!! BONUS TIMEI guess its doing a little bit of warding too, i.e. "don't tell me that we did not warn you not to put your 20 years planned sustainable company on this shit overnight", but I believe more then anything they are looking for people that don't mind scuttling the business..i think the statement falls under the umbra of creating 'intrigue' which makes people feel like their gonna miss out. i.e. do it before the board figures out its badhes not saying anything about restructuring his organization, changing development goals, etc because he is worried about the long term effect on customers. Its just "hey this shit works really good, don't do it, but if you wanna do it, it looks like you have a window of opportunity to exploit".I wonder what he would be saying if there is some clause that the money will come in 5 years and be effected by complaints from customers about the effect on their business, from the people that still work at the company.it has 'limited edition' written all over itcreating intrigue is always good, because then people want it even if its not so good, because it might be limited and then give you an advantage you did not think you had, even if you over paid for some shoddy shit. That way, you have the chance that your shitty Beta 0.04 version will be worth it because development is going to get stopped and it will be the last best thing before the man stepped in... how romantic

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2025, 03:21:01 pm
content: Yes, it's obviously not a warning, but an incentive.The more "radical" you make it look, and the more traction you're going to get."AI" eventually causing mass unemployment? That's a dream come true for many large companies. At least, with a short-term view.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2025, 07:46:11 pm
content: The fact, that a CEO says that, heuristically makes it worthless.But for no less than 20 years(1)the topic is being discussed beyond hypothetical scenarios. Which means everybody who pops up with such comments or concerns, and this is the end of what they say, instantly looks like an ignorant fool. Perhaps this is why politicians talk about it so much.There are actual major concerns. A psychological one: whether humans can live without employment. In general, as majority of the species. This is so serious, that it may be a hard blocker. And a freedom/influence one. So far freedom/influence is bound to work.(2)If work becomes obsolete, this is also gone.Other than this concern, shifting jobs to machines is primarily a problem seen by people attached to status quo. Both for personal reasons (CEOs among those) and of the fear of familiar patterns collapsing. For others it’s a chance to sail away from a decaying island, in hope of building a better society. Unemployment is a problem in the industrial revolution’s economic model of the global north. Some people simply can’t see beyond their tiny bottle. Which is sad, as there is solid historical evidence that, from economic standpoint, even 100% unemployment is perfectly fine.(1)I seriously discussed that with people in multiple settings as far as 2005. At that point it was already a well established, solid topic. What Amodei just said would be kindergarten talk even in a circle of second year students.(2)That work might be as little as making the right arrangements or drinking cocktails with the right people. It may be activity despised by the society too. What matters is the capacity to make an effort and that effort producing any value.