Ask HN: Why won't you be replaced by AI?

7 points by atleastoptimal 7 hours ago | 24 comments

AI models are rapidly getting better. The general public still hasn't seen the capabilities of Anthropic's Mythos model, which is already 4 months old at this point.

I've seen many arguments about why certain jobs will always need a "human in the loop", or that certain skills aren't replaceable by LLM's, but I am skeptical of this notion. It seems that if the general intelligence of these models continues to increase, then every job is just a matter of feeding in the right context, designing the right structures for agents to collaborate, having the right verification loops, etc, all of which are difficult to create, but not impossible.

If the improvements in models continue at the pace they have over the next 3 years (reminder, 3 years ago the best model was GPT-4), do you really believe that what you do now will not be done better by a system of LLM-driven agentic harnesses?

andrei_says_ 3 hours ago |

Interesting how we’re using passive language here.

LLMs do not replace jobs, managers constantly try to increase profit. Managers and business owners try to replace people’s jobs via automation.

LLM companies actively try to convince managers and business owners that LLMs are capable of replacing humans in white collar jobs.

An LLM/AI will not replace you, or me.

A business owner or manager might. They also might use an LLM to make decisions.

But let’s not use language which anctively obscures the decision makers in this process.

taurath 1 hour ago | |

Only chumps believe them when they say there’s not a choice. I haven’t seen a single manager take a pay cut for doing a layoff after their decisions.

byoung2 6 hours ago |

Stepping back from LLMs, look at other jobs that could have been fully automated using technology, but haven't. Some jobs, like a grocery cashier could be automated with self check, or waiters could be replaced with phone ordering. We still have humans in these roles, decades after they could have been replaced.

atleastoptimal 5 hours ago | |

I think many of the jobs which aren't completely automated, but could be automated based on a explicit reading of their job requirements, are due to many implicit requirements being part of the job.

For cashiers, beyond simply ringing up customers, they serve the function of:

1. Validating IDs

2. Preventing theft

3. Creating a positive atmosphere

4. Helping customers bag groceries

5. Resolving issues/questions about products/the store

For waiters, likewise they have the job of

1. Creating a positive atmosphere

2. Physically bringing food to the table and setting the meal

3. Upselling items, providing recommendations, catering to specific unusual guest needs

etc. Basically all these jobs have a huge soft-skills dependent interface which no technology currently can replicate what humans can do.

I don't think that every job can be trivially automated by a large language model, but any job where the inputs/outputs are entirely via a computer, LLM's are approaching the point where they are equivalently enabled to a human, and there is no "real human body in-person" soft-skills interface.

byoung2 5 hours ago | | |

When I worked at Disney, there were some jobs where people's entire jobs were compiling reports and following up with various departments. Like taking lists of security vulnerabilities from scans and getting commitment dates to fix them. They would take the data out of one system and put it in a spreadsheet. Then they would reach out and create Jira tickets for the teams responsible and then schedule meetings if necessary to discuss. These roles are definitely at risk.

adampunk 1 hour ago | |

Even in the US which lags behind in this area it would be obscene to claim that grocery cashiers aren't being actively replaced. That's just not connected to reality. Most grocery stores I've been in have essentially 1 open lane with a human where there used to be a half dozen. You might as well say that airline ticket agents haven't been replaced.

torben-friis 6 hours ago |

LLMs will probably get to a point where anyone who provides a well explained, fully detailed account of what they want can get it.

My job is safe.

atleastoptimal 6 hours ago | |

Is the implication that currently it is rare to get a well-explained, fully detailed account of what someone wants, necessitating you as a "translator" of poorly specified requirements to features that actually solve the problems people are having?

My question is, is that thing which you are doing, ascertaining the subtle concerns, soliciting requirements, etc. truly out of the range of what an LLM or LLM-guided system could do?

cyanydeez 1 hour ago |

programming is the side car to a professional license which is domain knowledge + active ethically required professional license.

ex-aws-dude 7 hours ago |

Even if we assume extreme case where coding is only done by 99% LLMs in the future

Who is the best possible person you could hire to operate the LLM?

Who has a good mental model of what its doing underneath and has the best expertise to direct/guide it?

IMO no one is better positioned to use these tools than software engineers

atleastoptimal 6 hours ago | |

What if the best "person" to operate an LLM is an LLM itself, or more precisely an agentic loop driven by an LLM? DO you believe this won't be the case?

ex-aws-dude 6 hours ago | | |

The CEO of the company is not going to be directing the LLM

At minimum you at least need CEO -> product person -> LLM

There can any number of agents/loops after that but someone has to translate the requirements to the LLM and monitor/verify the results.

What I'm saying is in the extreme case the SE evolves to become the product person.

If you want to argue for fully autonomous companies then thats drifting into sci-fi

comparedge 7 hours ago |

a single LLM isn't the threat, a thousand coordinated ones are

erminpour 7 hours ago |

"AI models are rapidly getting better." How many times are we going to keep hearing this? Give the horse the dang carrot!

I'm so tired of hearing about AI.

andrei_says_ 3 hours ago | |

AI models are rapidly getting better… at creating an unstoppable tide of hype about AI models rapidly getting better.

balefulboy 5 hours ago | |

I still don't know why people are saying this. I don't really code but from what I've heard on here the models haven't improved since Opus 4.5

atleastoptimal 6 hours ago | |

>How many times are we going to keep hearing this?

Until it's no longer true

comparedge 7 hours ago | |

ppl said same thing about cloud, smartphones, n the internet dude the signal is usually hidden inside the hype

blinkbat 7 hours ago |

No. The only defense is societal.

andsoitis 7 hours ago |

... because I'm not defined solely by "intelligence".

atleastoptimal 7 hours ago | |

What is your job?