It doesn't matter if it works(henry.codes) |
It doesn't matter if it works(henry.codes) |
Many similar claims have not aged well.
We’re deep into ‘no true Scotsman’ territory.
This is one of the foundational premises of this whole piece, and it's false.
The other premise is AI doesn't work, and that's actually true.
How is it that just a few years ago everyone was whining about needing more skills than ever to do their job, and now suddenly "because AI" they don't? Which is it?
The entire post is the same topic repeated ad-nauseam that "deskilling" concentrates labor into roles with less scope so that automation can take over.
I'm saying the opposite has been happening for decades. The only people who think that work is getting less skilled are on the far extremes of the political spectrum. They're both allergic to work and dream up disaster or utopia to get their way.
I don't understand the logic in this. Before AI, if a job was crazy popular and a lot more people got involved passionate or not, it's still _people_ doing things at the rate limit of _people_? Even people with disproportionately large amount of resources to do things they still had to hire the _people_ who can do the job to do it? How is that anything close to the issues presented in the article?
Passion also has nothing to do with being professional. You can do a job extremely well by being professional but not at all passionate about it, and you can be extremely passionate about something but absolutely terrible at doing it as a job. The labor force requires you to be professional, not passionate. Great if you get to be both because you are the lucky few.
But... companies can always fire people? Yes, AI may be a face-saving excuse after post-COVID overhiring, but you can always get fired. Economic downturns, tariffs, you name it. The housing crisis had nothing to do with AI.
The reason that companies don't "RIF any%" (author's words) every year is mostly that they can't do that and stay in business. They need people, and in the "AI doesn't work" scenario, they will continue to need them.
I feel that in the article, the main thesis isn't really developed and just seems like an excuse to talk about class warfare and the evils of capitalism. Which is obviously a fine thing to blog about, but I think it's just preaching to the choir.
I run a business and have occasionally benefited from the fact that people want work so badly that I can get their skilled labor at an absurdly low price.
AI is having a devastating effect on the psychology of the industry, regardless of the fact that it largely sucks. The author of this piece makes an excellent point.