Jamie Dimon Says AI Will Eliminate Jobs, 'It Is What It Is' — But Warns Cutting $150,000 Truck Driving Jobs To $25K A Year Would Bring 'Civil Unrest'
For workers wondering how far artificial intelligence could go, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has a straightforward answer — AI is going to change the job market, whether people are ready for it or not. Some jobs will disappear, others will change and new ones will likely emerge. But Dimon warned that the speed of that transition could matter just as much as the technology itself.
"As a business person, my view is don't put your head in the sand," Dimon said at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January. "It is what it is. We're going to deploy it. Will it eliminate jobs? Yes. Will it change jobs? Yes. Will it add some jobs? Probably."
They spend so much on eliminating jobs and social programs. The government enables this by giving them tax cuts with money obtained by taking food out of the mouths of children? We could never "afford" universal health-insurance, but we could afford to invest in eliminating human workers that just want to put a roof over their head?
Seems like a recipie for guillotines.
But, hey
https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/jamie-dimon-says-ai-eliminate-230006631.html?guccounter=1Open linkView original on lemmy.world
21 replies
I have a novel idea. Requalify people whose jobs are automated, redistribute the efficiency gains equitably, and reduce everyone's working time.
Or maybe fuck around, cancel the last bathroom break of whatever Amazon warehouse employees are left instead of using productivity gains to improve working conditions, and find out.
The people resisting AI because jobs will be lost are fighting a losing battle. There's never been a case in history where we decided not to adopt a new technology because some people would lose their jobs. From a historical perspective, it's not even the wrong decision for humanity.
They should be focusing on the important stuff, what happens AFTER jobs are eliminated? I personally prefer UBI, and the increase of leisure time, but there's plenty of other options and we should be making sure we discuss the right ones.
How about the massive theft of art, thoughts, and data?
Does anybody realistically think AI use will stop worldwide because of that? Best case scenario I can see happening is some sort of compensation.
It shouldn’t have begun in the first place if the technology is built on intellectual pillaging and destruction of humanities culmination. That’s the bigger crime.
I kind of disagree, but that's also an entirely different discussion.
There’s a big IF at the end of what you quoted. I’m not anti AI in its inevitability. But there’s a very real cost to creating it. And soon to be a steep barrier to entry to that knowledge, or at least the parts they’ll show you.
That's definitely a big if, I'm not even sure what that means, much less that it's true.
Regarding intellectual pillaging, that depends on your opinion of it. I'm of the viewpoint that it's no significantly different from any human learning from the works of those that came before. Also not a fan of copyright as it exists, so...
things like this.
Where they’re taking old books, which have a finite quantity to them, scanning the information, and destroying the books. That is literally destruction of information, and en masse, destroys what we have collectively gained in knowledge as a civilization. Because at the end of all of this, only a handful of people will truly have access to it. What the rest of us will see is what they will allow. And as it stands, I do not trust the current curators. I do not support the destruction or limiting of information.
The only jobs that will end are whatever this guy considers work is, not sure how he thinks AI is going to be able to handle the "boozy lunch" component, but pretty sure it's already got "talking gibberish to other over paid idiots" down pat
sadly he’s right
see how machines ending weaving and cloth making
there are still people making cloth by hand, though. They're able to do it because there are others willing to pay a premium for handmade goods or simply because they have their needs met and are thus free to do it without worrying about profit.
The same logic extends to basically anything, the only thing holding us back from having people do work is that we as a society have decided that it's ok for a few people to exploit everyone else and keep resources out of our hands.
We more than have the technology to live in what for all intents and purposes is a post-scarcity world.
this will hold true for ai gen art as well
When you ask people what they actually do with AI, unless they are in software development, it amounts to not much. They best people can come up with is "I summarised a document for my boss" or "I made a presentation". Is there really people who's whole job focuses on doing these monotonous things? Maybe, but I doubt that's a large amount of people.
For software there's a distinct problem with quality. People will say that doesn't matter I shipped it a lot quicker and it did what I want. But that can only last for so long, new models will learn from their own shit code from previous generations and the new average will be shittier.
Tell me you've never worked at any MNC.
I do actually work at a multinational corp, the people who try and push AI are a small number who bang on about dumb use cases as above. They don't last long. If you could replace HR then that's probably a good thing. They aren't a large group in my office.
even if this does not happen we should just get ubi and universal healthcare going just as a prophylatic. one side is really against prophylactics though.
It all depends on how you package it, unfortunately...
Lowering the wages/destroying legacy professions always comes with unrest. The implication is that that job is solved. A 1920 Dockworker would be paid pennies for their productivity. We just need way fewer then back than. A lot of people in costal cities used to just be dock workers.
I think one company recently realized why AI won't work as great as they expect it to. It's expensive! It costs more than current employees. On top of that companies are handing over power to other companies who control the AI they implement. So the company loses lower wage people and control of elements of their own company, not to mention if the AI is used to talk with the customer they hate it and can lead to worse service which lowers the brands name. The last part is if it's expensive now it will only continue to get more expensive not lower. Thats just not how businesses work. So that contract they signed today will most likely put a clause of 5% yearly annual increase and when the contract is up it also will most likely cost more upon renewal. So they no longer have the choice to stiff employees each year by saying sorry no raises. Idk how companies can justify this expense over an ectual employee.