The link in the article to the MIT report doesn’t directly link to any report. I wouldn’t trust this article until the report is accessible and verifiable.
My experience with AI so far is that I have to waste more time fine tuning my prompt to get what I want and still end up with some obvious issues that I have to manually fix and the only way I would know about these issues is my prior experience which I will stop gaining if I start depending on AI too much, plus it creates unrealistic expectations from employers on execution time, it’s the worst thing that has happened to the tech industry, I hate my career now and just want to switch to any boring but stable low paying job if I don’t have to worry about going through months for a job hunt
Sounds like we all just wamt to retire as goat farmers. Just like before. The more things change…they say
MANY companies aren’t profitable for several years. The one I work at wasn’t for 2 decades. It’s a long game.
Yeah. No shit. wtf did they think was gonna generate returns? They wanna run ads in the middle if responses?
I’m not sure they were expecting returns. Just afraid that if other companies had AI, they might lose business to them. Except of course a lot of people (or at least I) avoid anything with AI and mistrust its results.
30-40 billion USD in total worldwide over three years seems very little compared to the massive expenditures by the AI companies to build the things?
For me that aren’t good with scripting AI can actually fill a educational role. Or at least point me in correct direction so I can complete the rest myself.
I feel like we could find ways and tools to help in that situation without stealing the entirety of human knowledge, boiling our planet, and spending a small nation’s GDP. Like better code library discovery or a better mentor environment amongst coders.
I’ve also seen plenty of people get pointed in the exact wrong way to do things by leaning on generative AI and then have to spend even more time getting back on track.
Does this mean they’ll invest the money in paying workers? No… they’re just have to double down.
Once again we see the Parasite Class playing unethically with the labour/wealth they have stolen from their employees.
hello, welcome to taco bell, i am your new ai order specialist. would you like to try a combo of the new dorito blast mtw dew crunchwrap?
spoken at a rate of 5 words a minute to every single person in the drive thru. the old people have no idea how to order with a computer using key words.
Imagine what the economy would look like if they spent 30 billion on wages.
This is where the problem of the supply/demand curve comes in. One of the truths of the 1980s Soviet Union’s infamous breadlines wasn’t that people were poor and had no money, or that basic goods (like bread) were too expensive — in a Communist system most people had plenty of money, and the price of goods was fixed by the government to be affordable — the real problem was one of production. There simply weren’t enough goods to go around.
The entire basic premise of inflation is that we as a society produce X amount of goods, but people need X+Y amount of goods. Ideally production increases to meet demand — but when it doesn’t (or can’t fast enough) the other lever is that prices rise so that demand decreases, such that production once again closely approximates demand.
This is why just giving everyone struggling right now more money isn’t really a solution. We could take the assets of the 100 richest people in the world and redistribute it evenly amongst people who are struggling — and all that would happen is that there wouldn’t be enough production to meet the new spending ability, so so prices would go up. Those who control the production would simply get all their money back again, and we’d be back to where we started.
Of course, it’s only profitable to increase production if the cost of basic inputs can be decreased — if you know there is a big untapped market for bread out there and you can undercut the competition, cheaper flour and automation helps quite a bit. But if flour is so expensive that you can’t undercut the established guys, then fighting them for a small slice of the market just doesn’t make sense.
Personally, I’m all for something like UBI — but it’s only really going to work if we as a society also increase production on basic needs (housing, food, clothing, telecommunications, transit, etc.) so they can be and remain at affordable prices. Otherwise just having more money in circulation won’t help anything — if anything it will just be purely inflationary.
There are more empty homes than homeless in the US. I’ve seen literal tons of food and clothing go right to the dump to protect profit margins.
Do you have any sources to back up the claim that we need to make more shit?
We could take the assets of the 100 richest people in the world and redistribute it evenly amongst people who are struggling — and all that would happen is that there wouldn’t be enough production to meet the new spending ability, so so prices would go up. Those who control the production would simply get all their money back again, and we’d be back to where we started.
Then we should do that over and over again.
This is not true. We have enough production. Wtf are people throwing away half their plates at restaurants? Why does one rich guy live in a mansion? The super rich consume more than people realize. You are wrong on so many levels that I do not know where to start. You sound like a bot billionaire shill.
We have enough production in some areas — but not in others. Some goods are currently overly expensive because the inputs are expensive — mostly because we’re not producing enough. In many cases that’s due to insufficient competition. And there are some significant entrenched interests trying to keep things that way (lower production == lower competition == higher prices).
And FWIW, the US’s current “tariff everything and everybody” approach is going to make this much, much, much worse.
I am certainly not the friend of billionaires. I’m perfectly fine with a wealth tax to fund public works and services. All I’m against is overly simplistic solutions which just exacerbate existing problems.
You sound like a dad after reading the morning press.
You are repeating indoctrinated capitalist think patterns. In reality the market most often does not react like that.
The example as given by you is how you basically teach the concept of market balance to middle schoolers. However, it’s a hypotetical lab analogy. It’s over simplified for lay people. Comparable to the famous “ignore air resistance” in physics.
Markets are at times efficient, at other times inefficient. They may even be both concurrently.
First, economists do not believe that the market solves all problems. Indeed, many economists make a living out of analyzing “market failures” such as pollution in which laissez faire policy leads not to social efficiency, but to inefficiency.
Like our colleagues in the other social and natural sciences, academic economists focus their greatest energies on communicating to their peers within their own discipline. Greater effort can certainly be given by economists to improving communication across disciplinary boundaries
In the real world, it is not possible for markets to be perfect due to inefficient producers, externalities, environmental concerns, and lack of public goods.
If we’re just talking about the USA, then the ~200 million working people would get $150 each.
We could always just confiscate all fortunes over 900 million dollars.
The 5 richest billionaires have a combined $1.154 trillion, which divided by $340 million gives us $3,394 per American citizen. That’s literally just the top 5. According to Forbes there were 813 billionaires in 2024. Sounds pretty damned substantial to me. We’re talking life-altering amounts of money for every American without even glancing in the direction of mere hundred-millionaires. And all the billionaires could still be absurdly wealthy.
Does the 30 billion also account for allocated resources (such as the incredibly demanding amount of electricity required to run a decent AI for millions if not billions of future doctors and engineers to use to pass exams)?
Does it account for the future losses of creativity & individuality in this cesspool of laziness & greed?
They’ll happily burn mountains of profits on that stuff, but not on decent wages or health insurance.
Some of them won’t even pay to replace broken office chairs for the employees they forced to RTO.
Wages or health insurance are a very known cost, with a known return. At some point the curve flattens and the return gets less and less for the money you put in. That means there is a sweet spot, but most companies don’t even want to invest that much to get to that point.
AI however, is the next new thing. It’s gonna be big, huge! There’s no telling how much profit there is to be made!
Because nobody has calculated any profits yet. Services seem to run at a loss so far.
However, everybody and their grandmother is into it, so lots of companies feel the pressure to do something with it. They fear they will no longer be relevant if they don’t.
And since nobody knows how much money there is to be made, every company is betting that it will be a lot. Where wages and insurance are a known cost/investment with a known return, AI is not, but companies are betting the return will be much bigger.
I’m curious how it will go. Either the bubble bursts or companies slowly start to realise what is happening and shift their focus to the next thing. In the latter case, we may eventually see some AI develop that is useful.
It’s a game to them that doesn’t take into consideration any human element.
It’s like the sociopathic villains in Trading Places betting a dollar on whether or not Valentine would succeed. They don’t really give a shit. It’s all for the game that might result in throwing more money on their pile.
I’ll take no shit for $500, Alex.
With how much got wasted on AI, that $500 might not be there anymore. Would you take $5?
I’ve started using AI on my CTOs request. ChaptGPT business licence. My experience so far: it gives me working results really quick, but the devil lies in the details. It takes so much time fine tuning, debugging and refactoring, that I’m not really faster. The code works, but I would have never implemented it that way, if I had done it myself.
Looking forward for the hype dying, so I can pick up real software engineering again.
There are still employers bitching about how no one wants to work anymore. I doubt any lessons will be learned here.
it makes sense to someone like me who is not a dev but works with coding at times, I don’t get the experience to be quick with it.
- Your code will be significantly more insecure. Expect anything exposed to world+dog to be hacked far quicker than your own work.
- You will code even slower than if you just did the work yourself.
- You will fail to grow as a coder, and will even see your existing skills erode.
Yea
Vibe coding is for us armatures, who want the occasional hello world
I use it for programing home assistant, since I just can’t get my head around the YAML.
But it’s okay, because MY company is AHEAD OF THE CURVE on those 95% losses
5% is Nvidia.
There are not enough 💯 emoji in the world for this post.
💯
