• FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    If it lets a person doing job X do twice as much work, that’s effectively replacing a person in job X. There’s now half as many of those jobs needed.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yup, and using AI as a tutor replaces tutors.
      Its the problem with anything that increases productivity. Either people are expected to do more in the same time, or less people are needed to do the same work.

      There is a balance to be struck.
      New talent needs training and experience. If the current method of getting that is hands-on, and it gets replaced by AI, then talent and experience in the field will dry up. Or, qualifications to get into that career will take longer to train. Or, the path from entry level to senior level needs to be reassessed.

      So, if a junior lawyer spends 4 years doing menial case work research before being able contribute in other ways, then that training needs to come from somewhere.
      Replacing that menial work with AI (which will be able to do it faster) means there will be less entry level jobs, and higher level lawyers will be expected to do more work (“drive” the AI) and probably take on more clients.
      Using AI to guide the juniors research will improve the juniors productivity, still give experience, however will likely reduce the number of entry jobs available.

      Its probably the same arguments that a lot of blue-collar workers have made when automation replaced their jobs. Higher level machinists cut their teeth by doing more menial manufacturing jobs, less entry level jobs, less machinists, talent stagnation, etc