Skip to content

AI will replace routine — freeing people for creativity.

Technology
14 7 0
  • AI will replace routine — freeing people for creativity.

    That's what technological optimists have been saying for decades. But today, the reality is far more mundane: the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) is replacing people. The world of human labor is fading faster and more ruthlessly than we're used to. The problem is no longer just unemployment as a temporary phenomenon, but a system in which people, once laid off, have nowhere to go.

    According to data from the world’s largest job board, Indeed, demand for IT jobs is rapidly declining. Backend development, testing, technical analysis — all of this is being automated faster than education systems can adapt. Since the end of 2022, global tech corporations have laid off more than 635,000 employees. Behind this figure are engineers, designers, analysts, UX specialists — people who, until recently, were considered the elite of the digital world.

    These layoffs are not temporary. They reflect a structural shift in the logic of labor. GPT platforms, code generators, and automated data processing pipelines are making the traditional employment architecture obsolete. The key change is the speed. Technology is replacing people faster than governments, societies, and families can adapt.

    This is precisely why the issue of universal basic income (UBI) is resurfacing — not as a utopian idea from leftist manifestos, but as a political mechanism to prevent the collapse of the social structure. In a world where even highly skilled labor is losing its uniqueness, a new question emerges: how can we ensure people have basic agency in a world where there’s no work for them?

    Another paradox arises: layoffs are most common in sectors that were, until recently, considered the flagships of the "new economy." Technological progress, built by the hands of thousands of engineers, has become the very force pushing them out. In this sense, neural networks are not just changing the market — they are transforming the very notion of human usefulness. Right now — while replacement is happening in the upper tiers of professions — society must ask: who will be needed? And what will be the status of the rest?

    Source – citation

    The problem is that even those supposedly "freed for creativity" are now being squeezed by modern neural networks. After all, why pay a mid-level artisan-artist if a neural net can generate a more-or-less decent image with minimal cost? Voice actors encountered this same issue when it became clear that neural networks could already deliver passable voiceovers that closely resemble the original. No, it's not perfect yet — but give it a few years, and neural voiceovers will become the norm.

    Naturally, in an environment where the state aims to reduce its basic obligations and the service sector is growing, the influx of "valuable creative professionals" into the labor market creates a permanent problem — one that will only worsen as neural networks (and in the future, quasi-AI) continue to evolve, bringing to life the grim forecasts of 1980s cyberpunk. It appears that within the capitalist system, this problem is unsolvable (as, indeed, are many others).

  • AI will replace routine — freeing people for creativity.

    That's what technological optimists have been saying for decades. But today, the reality is far more mundane: the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) is replacing people. The world of human labor is fading faster and more ruthlessly than we're used to. The problem is no longer just unemployment as a temporary phenomenon, but a system in which people, once laid off, have nowhere to go.

    According to data from the world’s largest job board, Indeed, demand for IT jobs is rapidly declining. Backend development, testing, technical analysis — all of this is being automated faster than education systems can adapt. Since the end of 2022, global tech corporations have laid off more than 635,000 employees. Behind this figure are engineers, designers, analysts, UX specialists — people who, until recently, were considered the elite of the digital world.

    These layoffs are not temporary. They reflect a structural shift in the logic of labor. GPT platforms, code generators, and automated data processing pipelines are making the traditional employment architecture obsolete. The key change is the speed. Technology is replacing people faster than governments, societies, and families can adapt.

    This is precisely why the issue of universal basic income (UBI) is resurfacing — not as a utopian idea from leftist manifestos, but as a political mechanism to prevent the collapse of the social structure. In a world where even highly skilled labor is losing its uniqueness, a new question emerges: how can we ensure people have basic agency in a world where there’s no work for them?

    Another paradox arises: layoffs are most common in sectors that were, until recently, considered the flagships of the "new economy." Technological progress, built by the hands of thousands of engineers, has become the very force pushing them out. In this sense, neural networks are not just changing the market — they are transforming the very notion of human usefulness. Right now — while replacement is happening in the upper tiers of professions — society must ask: who will be needed? And what will be the status of the rest?

    Source – citation

    The problem is that even those supposedly "freed for creativity" are now being squeezed by modern neural networks. After all, why pay a mid-level artisan-artist if a neural net can generate a more-or-less decent image with minimal cost? Voice actors encountered this same issue when it became clear that neural networks could already deliver passable voiceovers that closely resemble the original. No, it's not perfect yet — but give it a few years, and neural voiceovers will become the norm.

    Naturally, in an environment where the state aims to reduce its basic obligations and the service sector is growing, the influx of "valuable creative professionals" into the labor market creates a permanent problem — one that will only worsen as neural networks (and in the future, quasi-AI) continue to evolve, bringing to life the grim forecasts of 1980s cyberpunk. It appears that within the capitalist system, this problem is unsolvable (as, indeed, are many others).

    let's see how many people actually read the post and not just a title. 👌
    stolen from here: https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9823609.html#cutid1
    who stole from here: https://t.me/Taynaya_kantselyariya/12400

  • AI will replace routine — freeing people for creativity.

    That's what technological optimists have been saying for decades. But today, the reality is far more mundane: the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) is replacing people. The world of human labor is fading faster and more ruthlessly than we're used to. The problem is no longer just unemployment as a temporary phenomenon, but a system in which people, once laid off, have nowhere to go.

    According to data from the world’s largest job board, Indeed, demand for IT jobs is rapidly declining. Backend development, testing, technical analysis — all of this is being automated faster than education systems can adapt. Since the end of 2022, global tech corporations have laid off more than 635,000 employees. Behind this figure are engineers, designers, analysts, UX specialists — people who, until recently, were considered the elite of the digital world.

    These layoffs are not temporary. They reflect a structural shift in the logic of labor. GPT platforms, code generators, and automated data processing pipelines are making the traditional employment architecture obsolete. The key change is the speed. Technology is replacing people faster than governments, societies, and families can adapt.

    This is precisely why the issue of universal basic income (UBI) is resurfacing — not as a utopian idea from leftist manifestos, but as a political mechanism to prevent the collapse of the social structure. In a world where even highly skilled labor is losing its uniqueness, a new question emerges: how can we ensure people have basic agency in a world where there’s no work for them?

    Another paradox arises: layoffs are most common in sectors that were, until recently, considered the flagships of the "new economy." Technological progress, built by the hands of thousands of engineers, has become the very force pushing them out. In this sense, neural networks are not just changing the market — they are transforming the very notion of human usefulness. Right now — while replacement is happening in the upper tiers of professions — society must ask: who will be needed? And what will be the status of the rest?

    Source – citation

    The problem is that even those supposedly "freed for creativity" are now being squeezed by modern neural networks. After all, why pay a mid-level artisan-artist if a neural net can generate a more-or-less decent image with minimal cost? Voice actors encountered this same issue when it became clear that neural networks could already deliver passable voiceovers that closely resemble the original. No, it's not perfect yet — but give it a few years, and neural voiceovers will become the norm.

    Naturally, in an environment where the state aims to reduce its basic obligations and the service sector is growing, the influx of "valuable creative professionals" into the labor market creates a permanent problem — one that will only worsen as neural networks (and in the future, quasi-AI) continue to evolve, bringing to life the grim forecasts of 1980s cyberpunk. It appears that within the capitalist system, this problem is unsolvable (as, indeed, are many others).

    Ah yes, creativity, the thing that payed the bills after every new innovation that got people fired.

  • let's see how many people actually read the post and not just a title. 👌
    stolen from here: https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9823609.html#cutid1
    who stole from here: https://t.me/Taynaya_kantselyariya/12400

    I read the post, but with this kind of title people actually should just skip the article and ridicule the clickbait title. Because it's intentionally selling the opposite message of the actual post. And that opposite message is not worth reading in detail.

  • I read the post, but with this kind of title people actually should just skip the article and ridicule the clickbait title. Because it's intentionally selling the opposite message of the actual post. And that opposite message is not worth reading in detail.

    Anyone who's used AI for more than about 10 minutes knows that it isn't ready to replace human workers yet.

    It's always funny when tech companies decide to fire all of their programmers so that they can replace them with AI only to have to rehire them again all of about 2 months later

  • Anyone who's used AI for more than about 10 minutes knows that it isn't ready to replace human workers yet.

    It's always funny when tech companies decide to fire all of their programmers so that they can replace them with AI only to have to rehire them again all of about 2 months later

    It literally replaced bunch of jobs at my friend company already.

  • Ah yes, creativity, the thing that payed the bills after every new innovation that got people fired.

    and, besides that... creativity? so you can make art, that will serve as training data for the AIs that will be taking all the creativity jobs.

    I mean yeah in a world where UBI is a thing, where food, clothing and basic shelter are a given, working is an extra if you want to live a fancier life... the idea of AI/machinery taking the majority of the jobs and most people just moving to creative pursuits and passion projects is the utopia concept.

  • AI will replace routine — freeing people for creativity.

    That's what technological optimists have been saying for decades. But today, the reality is far more mundane: the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) is replacing people. The world of human labor is fading faster and more ruthlessly than we're used to. The problem is no longer just unemployment as a temporary phenomenon, but a system in which people, once laid off, have nowhere to go.

    According to data from the world’s largest job board, Indeed, demand for IT jobs is rapidly declining. Backend development, testing, technical analysis — all of this is being automated faster than education systems can adapt. Since the end of 2022, global tech corporations have laid off more than 635,000 employees. Behind this figure are engineers, designers, analysts, UX specialists — people who, until recently, were considered the elite of the digital world.

    These layoffs are not temporary. They reflect a structural shift in the logic of labor. GPT platforms, code generators, and automated data processing pipelines are making the traditional employment architecture obsolete. The key change is the speed. Technology is replacing people faster than governments, societies, and families can adapt.

    This is precisely why the issue of universal basic income (UBI) is resurfacing — not as a utopian idea from leftist manifestos, but as a political mechanism to prevent the collapse of the social structure. In a world where even highly skilled labor is losing its uniqueness, a new question emerges: how can we ensure people have basic agency in a world where there’s no work for them?

    Another paradox arises: layoffs are most common in sectors that were, until recently, considered the flagships of the "new economy." Technological progress, built by the hands of thousands of engineers, has become the very force pushing them out. In this sense, neural networks are not just changing the market — they are transforming the very notion of human usefulness. Right now — while replacement is happening in the upper tiers of professions — society must ask: who will be needed? And what will be the status of the rest?

    Source – citation

    The problem is that even those supposedly "freed for creativity" are now being squeezed by modern neural networks. After all, why pay a mid-level artisan-artist if a neural net can generate a more-or-less decent image with minimal cost? Voice actors encountered this same issue when it became clear that neural networks could already deliver passable voiceovers that closely resemble the original. No, it's not perfect yet — but give it a few years, and neural voiceovers will become the norm.

    Naturally, in an environment where the state aims to reduce its basic obligations and the service sector is growing, the influx of "valuable creative professionals" into the labor market creates a permanent problem — one that will only worsen as neural networks (and in the future, quasi-AI) continue to evolve, bringing to life the grim forecasts of 1980s cyberpunk. It appears that within the capitalist system, this problem is unsolvable (as, indeed, are many others).

    So far, AI has replaced little routine and has tried to replace a lot of art and enjoyment

  • So far, AI has replaced little routine and has tried to replace a lot of art and enjoyment

    You guys are legit delusional.

    Bill Gates says this. Bill Gates says AI is doing labor substitution both blue and white collar.

    https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/11/business/video/bill-gates-donald-trump-tariffs-uncertainty-worry-fareed-zakaria-gps-digvid

  • So far, AI has replaced little routine and has tried to replace a lot of art and enjoyment

    AI has been able to take over the mediocre work by people who should be ashamed to call themselves creators in the first place.

    I, for one, welcome them to get a real job like the rest of us.

  • AI will replace routine — freeing people for creativity.

    That's what technological optimists have been saying for decades. But today, the reality is far more mundane: the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) is replacing people. The world of human labor is fading faster and more ruthlessly than we're used to. The problem is no longer just unemployment as a temporary phenomenon, but a system in which people, once laid off, have nowhere to go.

    According to data from the world’s largest job board, Indeed, demand for IT jobs is rapidly declining. Backend development, testing, technical analysis — all of this is being automated faster than education systems can adapt. Since the end of 2022, global tech corporations have laid off more than 635,000 employees. Behind this figure are engineers, designers, analysts, UX specialists — people who, until recently, were considered the elite of the digital world.

    These layoffs are not temporary. They reflect a structural shift in the logic of labor. GPT platforms, code generators, and automated data processing pipelines are making the traditional employment architecture obsolete. The key change is the speed. Technology is replacing people faster than governments, societies, and families can adapt.

    This is precisely why the issue of universal basic income (UBI) is resurfacing — not as a utopian idea from leftist manifestos, but as a political mechanism to prevent the collapse of the social structure. In a world where even highly skilled labor is losing its uniqueness, a new question emerges: how can we ensure people have basic agency in a world where there’s no work for them?

    Another paradox arises: layoffs are most common in sectors that were, until recently, considered the flagships of the "new economy." Technological progress, built by the hands of thousands of engineers, has become the very force pushing them out. In this sense, neural networks are not just changing the market — they are transforming the very notion of human usefulness. Right now — while replacement is happening in the upper tiers of professions — society must ask: who will be needed? And what will be the status of the rest?

    Source – citation

    The problem is that even those supposedly "freed for creativity" are now being squeezed by modern neural networks. After all, why pay a mid-level artisan-artist if a neural net can generate a more-or-less decent image with minimal cost? Voice actors encountered this same issue when it became clear that neural networks could already deliver passable voiceovers that closely resemble the original. No, it's not perfect yet — but give it a few years, and neural voiceovers will become the norm.

    Naturally, in an environment where the state aims to reduce its basic obligations and the service sector is growing, the influx of "valuable creative professionals" into the labor market creates a permanent problem — one that will only worsen as neural networks (and in the future, quasi-AI) continue to evolve, bringing to life the grim forecasts of 1980s cyberpunk. It appears that within the capitalist system, this problem is unsolvable (as, indeed, are many others).

    Good. It's sad and telling to see white-collar workers get angry about being replaced by machines.

    You people didn't care when it was blue-collar workers being replaced.

    Hypocrites.

  • and, besides that... creativity? so you can make art, that will serve as training data for the AIs that will be taking all the creativity jobs.

    I mean yeah in a world where UBI is a thing, where food, clothing and basic shelter are a given, working is an extra if you want to live a fancier life... the idea of AI/machinery taking the majority of the jobs and most people just moving to creative pursuits and passion projects is the utopia concept.

    So let's make that world.

    I swear, it's just sad watching how stupid most people are in regards to AI and working.

    It's like, the entire point of getting paid for a job is because it's something we wouldn't otherwise do for free. Using machines to do the work that we wouldn't do unless we got paid for has been the direction we've been going in since the invention of the fucking wheel.

    This is hypocrisy, greed, and entitlement on full display. Neo-liberal white collar workers are mad they're now experiencing the same fate blue collar workers experienced decades ago.

  • Good. It's sad and telling to see white-collar workers get angry about being replaced by machines.

    You people didn't care when it was blue-collar workers being replaced.

    Hypocrites.

    I care about all workers

  • I care about all workers

    So you are against having machines do the work of blue collar workers?

    We should all be out in the fields with plows instead of using a tractor and assembling everything by hand in factories?

  • 870 Stimmen
    72 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    J
    I think you're mistaken -- there are a large number of people who vehemently dislike it, why is probably why you think that.
  • 44 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    V
    I use it for my self hosted apps, but yeah, it's rarely useful for websites in the wild.
  • 512 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    E
    My cousin partially set his bedroom on fire doing something very similar with the foil from chewing gum. This was in the 1980s though so no one really cared, I'm pretty sure he just got shouted at.
  • Meta Reportedly Eyeing 'Super Sensing' Tech for Smart Glasses

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    33 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    M
    I see your point but also I just genuinely don't have a mind for that shit. Even my own close friends and family, it never pops into my head to ask about that vacation they just got back from or what their kids are up to. I rely on social cues from others, mainly my wife, to sort of kick start my brain. I just started a new job. I can't remember who said they were into fishing and who didn't, and now it's anxiety inducing to try to figure out who is who. Or they ask me a friendly question and I get caught up answering and when I'm done I forget to ask it back to them (because frequently asking someone about their weekend or kids or whatever is their way of getting to share their own life with you, but my brain doesn't think that way). I get what you're saying. It could absolutely be used for performative interactions but for some of us people drift away because we aren't good at being curious about them or remembering details like that. And also, I have to sit through awkward lunches at work where no one really knows what to talk about or ask about because outside of work we are completely alien to one another. And it's fine. It wouldn't be worth the damage it does. I have left behind all personally identifiable social media for the same reason. But I do hate how social anxiety and ADHD makes friendship so fleeting.
  • 326 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    roofuskit@lemmy.worldR
    It's extremely traceable. There is a literal public ledger if every single transaction.
  • Are We All Becoming More Hostile Online?

    Technology technology
    31
    1
    212 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    A
    Back in the day I just assumed everyone was lying. Or trying to get people worked up, and we called them trolls. Learning how to ignore the trolls, and not having trust for strangers on the internet, coupled with the ability to basically not care what random people said is a lost art. Somehow people forgot to give other the people this memo, including the "you don't fucking join social networks as your self". Anonymity makes this all work. Eternal September newbies just didn't get it.
  • 31 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.
  • 48 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    Being “locked down” is irrelevant for a device used to read and write on. All those devices are also significantly more powerful than this thing. They all also have keyboard attachments readily available across all sizes and prices. Linux isn’t at all necessary for the use cases the author talks about. Windows would be massively overkill.