• Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I seriously don’t understand the end game here…

        These people are stuck with this mentality of “labor is one of the biggest expenses a company has so we need to eliminate it” like ok… and that labor goes and buys a product, if not yours because it’s “luxury” then someone else’s. The owner of that company spends their money on your luxury products, but they only have money because labor bought from them and now you only have money because of that labor…

        No labor, no money for anyone… It makes no sense.

        • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Experts understood this decades ago, and helped to build a system based around everyone having at least some money to spend. The unemployed kept the economy grinding, too. Seems to be forgotten lore now.

        • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 days ago

          I seriously don’t understand the end game here…

          CEOs only think in 5, maybe ten year plans, after that they sell out and sip drinks on their yachts. They don’t care about what will happen after they nail their bundle.

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            4 days ago

            Bold of you to assume they think 5 years out. I’d be surprised if most of them thought even 5 quarters out.

        • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 days ago

          They never count their own labour as a cost.

          Maybe it’s time we start counting bosses as a labour cost, and employees as a labour gain.

        • Seleni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 days ago

          Simple. It’s not only about how much they have, it’s about how much we don’t have.

          They also hate that the plebeians can do things they can’t, and they want the ability to do those things themselves, immediately, but without having to put in anything as low-brow as effort or practice.

          Up until now, they had to settle for paying lots of money to get those things and keep them for themselves—witness the art gallery scene—but this poses them two problems: they didn’t actually make it, and worse, they had to part with their precious money to get it.

          Now they think AI will let them make anything they want, do anything they want, and never have to pay artists or workers, so they can keep even more of their precious money.

        • dmention7@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          And then “why are people shooting us CEOs in the streets in broad daylight?”

          Edit for clarification

  • LemmyFeed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    4 days ago

    That 2nd picture really hits. You have a person sitting on a curb in a defeated posture, invoking images of someone who is down on their luck possibly unable to find work, while behind them is this ad featuring a blank almost soulless face depicting an “employee,” who presumably is the reason the curb sitter cannot find work, being praised for not ever needing or wanting work/life balance (you know, things like sleeping or not working)

    It’s such a bleak and dystopian scene presented in such an average everyday setting.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Cyberpunk is one of the most prophetic literary genres ever.

    • brown567@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      With dorks like musk who like the vibe and completely miss the point working as hard as they can to implement it, I feel like it’s somewhat of a self-fulfilling genre

      • vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 days ago

        Musk isn’t missing the point, he just relates more to the super evil mega corp CEOs than the punks. The “point” of cyberpunk doesn’t effect him because he’s not a worker.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        Cyberpunk traces its roots as far back as the sixties but really cemented itself in the late 70’s and early 80’s. The fact that their collective vision of the 2020’s was so damn close to reality is really damn freaky.

        • vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          There is a somewhat unknown cyberpunk comic called “2020 visions” written in the late 90s that basically perfectly predicts COVID-19.

          I read it for the first time during COVID times without knowing what I was getting into and it was pretty damn strange.

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      Me too, but the company is real and I found a story about their ad campaign in San Francisco. I also didn’t see any obvious traces AI in either image, and AI generally isn’t good at making text in images.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        the company is real

        Given the state of LLMs, their security (or lack thereof), hallucinations, and sociopathic responses, I don’t suspect that company is going to last long.

        All it takes is one of their “AI employees” to cause a colossal fuck-up for a client company, like losing a large sum of money or introducing legal liabilities.

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yup. AI will ultimately do more for those using it to maximize worker productivity than those trying to replace labor. There will always be new uses for workers, as unless there’s some conspiracy to cull the population, it’s a huge resource that causes problems if underutilized.

        • salacious_coaster@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Then they hire “AI cleanup specialist” contractors for a fraction of the cost of a competent full time employee. Everyone loses

  • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    In 2025, billions are spend to add AI into everything. In 2030, billions will be spend to remove AI from everything.

  • maria [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 days ago

    god this is so awful.

    also its complete falseness

    ml models arent there quite yet

    they might get there with world models tho


    u shud hire humans. most companies which tried to replace jobs with LLMs or whatevr failed, and had to re-hire.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    LLM is a massive burning money pit that doesn’t work as advertised and it’s supposed to save money on skilled labour when?

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s a pipe dream that cannot pan out for basic economic reasons, yet the rich don’t accept this because they aren’t smarter than everyone else.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 days ago

    They’ll need a universal basic income to preserve enough genetic diversity so that the AI-owner elites don’t habsburg the human species to extinction. Neoliberal ideology, however, states that it is immoral for people to be given something for nothing, and granting all of humanity ownership of common wealth, and thus making the basic income a dividend, would set a dangerous precedent that could undermine the actual owners. As such, the humans kept alive in the name of genetic diversity will have to be put to useless makework.