5 ms·

This is exactly right. Now, that does mean something about Zitron: he’s a pundit, not an expert or a forecasting genius. You could point to any number of analog

This is exactly right. Now, that does mean something about Zitron: he’s a pundit, not an expert or a forecasting genius. You could point to any number of analogous booster types. Twitter/X somehow loves pushing these people onto my recommended feed. I remember reading breathless threads about how o3 was going to single-handedly end white collar work. There are just more of that sort of person, so none of them in particular gets the same amount of attention as Zitron, who seems to be the only person willing to go on the record against AI. Maybe his overall worldview is sound, and maybe it isn’t. But he’s not really making confident, specific predictions about the future. Which leads me to a criticism of the piece: several assertions are described as “Wrong,” with no explanation or citation, which are not obviously wrong to my mind. For example, the assertion that “DeepSeek has commoditized the [LLM]” is at least debatable. It is a prospect that the major labs seem to have at least considered.

asats 15d ago
is this comment written by ai?
sfblah 15d ago
In my experience, people who make fun of AI's ability to eliminate white-collar work are exactly the same people who are white-knuckling it, hoping they can make another $300k next year to buy that Rivian. People who don't need a salary look at the situation more objectively and, in general, can see that a lot of white-collar work is in peril.
- pocksuppet 15d ago
  The flip side of that is that at least half of all white-collar work was already useless before AI. If it hasn't already been eliminated, there's no reason to assume a-priori that AI can eliminate it.
  - dosisking 15d ago
    If half of all white-collar work was useless before AI, and AI can replace those workers, then one can logically conclude that AI is useless.
    - sfblah 15d ago
      Not completely. It just means you can have an AI do the useless busywork instead of a human. Something can be economically useful but still have proponents in a firm.
      - pydry 15d ago
        A lot of the "useless work" is busywork you do being a part of an executive's empire so they can claim they managed X number of people. How can it do that?
        pocksuppet 14d ago
        Call your project Gas Town, write a blog about it, and investors will be swarming all over it thinking managing agents is even more impressive than managing people.
- pydry 15d ago
  IME many of the people who truly believe it's replacing white collar workers are being replaced are invested in the stock market bubble.
- mancerayder 14d ago
  >In my experience, people who make fun of AI's ability to eliminate white-collar work are exactly the same people who are white-knuckling it, hoping they can make another $300k next year to buy that Rivian. In my experience, people who believe that some white collar industry can easily be automated with AI usually don't work that same role or even that industry, and suffer from Dunning-Kruger bias. In my line of work, I'm desperate for Claude to actually do a better job at not producing a big mess, and it's failing terribly. I don't work in law, but I feel like I barely need a lawyer if I can ask an LLM to interpret a contract for me. I don't work as a physician, but why can't I just cut and paste an MRI report and ask Claude what to do. I'm no plumber, but it I take a picture of some fixtures I am thinking about replacing, Claude will give me some items to add to the shopping cart from a plumbing supply store. In all cases Claude was super confident and it wrote what felt really rational. But in my experience it gets things right, in some amazing ways, but it gets things wrong, in shocking ways. Everyone thinks it's someone else's job that it'll automate.
- arctic-true 15d ago
  I think that is tied to the general trend that people see themselves as far less replaceable than others. And I’m not sure that people who don’t need a salary are exactly objective about it - unless you mean people who live off the state or something, those are people who need their capital reserves to continue to appreciate in order to sustain their lifestyles, and are thus relying on the destruction of white collar work to justify the valuations of the technology companies which are underpinning the strength of the markets. It’s like saying in the 19th century that only the propertied classes should be allowed to make decisions about labor policy, because the laborers themselves have their judgment clouded by their position. But I take your point, and I only brought up the o3 example to emphasize that people on both sides of the booster/doubter debate can be prisoners of the moment. There are boosters eternally convinced that the utopia (or armageddon, for the doomer-inclined) is either already here or imminent, and there are doubters eternally convinced that we have reached the peak. One of them will eventually be right, but neither has been yet. You can’t fault one of them for calling their shot if you’re not willing to see it happening on the other side.
  - randusername 14d ago
    > I think that is tied to the general trend that people see themselves as far less replaceable than others. What if (almost) everyone is right, that their work really is more difficult to automate than others realize? This could be the lesser minds problem. Based on it I am doubtful most knowledge workers are as immediately replaceable as everyone suspects.

asats 15d ago

is this comment written by ai?

sfblah 15d ago

In my experience, people who make fun of AI's ability to eliminate white-collar work are exactly the same people who are white-knuckling it, hoping they can make another $300k next year to buy that Rivian. People who don't need a salary look at the situation more objectively and, in general, can see that a lot of white-collar work is in peril.

pocksuppet 15d ago
The flip side of that is that at least half of all white-collar work was already useless before AI. If it hasn't already been eliminated, there's no reason to assume a-priori that AI can eliminate it.
- dosisking 15d ago
  If half of all white-collar work was useless before AI, and AI can replace those workers, then one can logically conclude that AI is useless.
  - sfblah 15d ago
    Not completely. It just means you can have an AI do the useless busywork instead of a human. Something can be economically useful but still have proponents in a firm.
    - pydry 15d ago
      A lot of the "useless work" is busywork you do being a part of an executive's empire so they can claim they managed X number of people. How can it do that?
      - pocksuppet 14d ago
        Call your project Gas Town, write a blog about it, and investors will be swarming all over it thinking managing agents is even more impressive than managing people.
pydry 15d ago
IME many of the people who truly believe it's replacing white collar workers are being replaced are invested in the stock market bubble.
mancerayder 14d ago
>In my experience, people who make fun of AI's ability to eliminate white-collar work are exactly the same people who are white-knuckling it, hoping they can make another $300k next year to buy that Rivian. In my experience, people who believe that some white collar industry can easily be automated with AI usually don't work that same role or even that industry, and suffer from Dunning-Kruger bias. In my line of work, I'm desperate for Claude to actually do a better job at not producing a big mess, and it's failing terribly. I don't work in law, but I feel like I barely need a lawyer if I can ask an LLM to interpret a contract for me. I don't work as a physician, but why can't I just cut and paste an MRI report and ask Claude what to do. I'm no plumber, but it I take a picture of some fixtures I am thinking about replacing, Claude will give me some items to add to the shopping cart from a plumbing supply store. In all cases Claude was super confident and it wrote what felt really rational. But in my experience it gets things right, in some amazing ways, but it gets things wrong, in shocking ways. Everyone thinks it's someone else's job that it'll automate.
arctic-true 15d ago
I think that is tied to the general trend that people see themselves as far less replaceable than others. And I’m not sure that people who don’t need a salary are exactly objective about it - unless you mean people who live off the state or something, those are people who need their capital reserves to continue to appreciate in order to sustain their lifestyles, and are thus relying on the destruction of white collar work to justify the valuations of the technology companies which are underpinning the strength of the markets. It’s like saying in the 19th century that only the propertied classes should be allowed to make decisions about labor policy, because the laborers themselves have their judgment clouded by their position. But I take your point, and I only brought up the o3 example to emphasize that people on both sides of the booster/doubter debate can be prisoners of the moment. There are boosters eternally convinced that the utopia (or armageddon, for the doomer-inclined) is either already here or imminent, and there are doubters eternally convinced that we have reached the peak. One of them will eventually be right, but neither has been yet. You can’t fault one of them for calling their shot if you’re not willing to see it happening on the other side.
- randusername 14d ago
  > I think that is tied to the general trend that people see themselves as far less replaceable than others. What if (almost) everyone is right, that their work really is more difficult to automate than others realize? This could be the lesser minds problem. Based on it I am doubtful most knowledge workers are as immediately replaceable as everyone suspects.