AI will replace routine — freeing people for creativity.

That’s what technological optimists have been saying for decades. But today, the reality is far more mundane: the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) is replacing people. The world of human labor is fading faster and more ruthlessly than we’re used to. The problem is no longer just unemployment as a temporary phenomenon, but a system in which people, once laid off, have nowhere to go.

According to data from the world’s largest job board, Indeed, demand for IT jobs is rapidly declining. Backend development, testing, technical analysis — all of this is being automated faster than education systems can adapt. Since the end of 2022, global tech corporations have laid off more than 635,000 employees. Behind this figure are engineers, designers, analysts, UX specialists — people who, until recently, were considered the elite of the digital world.

These layoffs are not temporary. They reflect a structural shift in the logic of labor. GPT platforms, code generators, and automated data processing pipelines are making the traditional employment architecture obsolete. The key change is the speed. Technology is replacing people faster than governments, societies, and families can adapt.

This is precisely why the issue of universal basic income (UBI) is resurfacing — not as a utopian idea from leftist manifestos, but as a political mechanism to prevent the collapse of the social structure. In a world where even highly skilled labor is losing its uniqueness, a new question emerges: how can we ensure people have basic agency in a world where there’s no work for them?

Another paradox arises: layoffs are most common in sectors that were, until recently, considered the flagships of the “new economy.” Technological progress, built by the hands of thousands of engineers, has become the very force pushing them out. In this sense, neural networks are not just changing the market — they are transforming the very notion of human usefulness. Right now — while replacement is happening in the upper tiers of professions — society must ask: who will be needed? And what will be the status of the rest?

Source – citation

The problem is that even those supposedly “freed for creativity” are now being squeezed by modern neural networks. After all, why pay a mid-level artisan-artist if a neural net can generate a more-or-less decent image with minimal cost? Voice actors encountered this same issue when it became clear that neural networks could already deliver passable voiceovers that closely resemble the original. No, it’s not perfect yet — but give it a few years, and neural voiceovers will become the norm.

Naturally, in an environment where the state aims to reduce its basic obligations and the service sector is growing, the influx of “valuable creative professionals” into the labor market creates a permanent problem — one that will only worsen as neural networks (and in the future, quasi-AI) continue to evolve, bringing to life the grim forecasts of 1980s cyberpunk. It appears that within the capitalist system, this problem is unsolvable (as, indeed, are many others).

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    No it won’t. You already have things like Visual Basic and Tcl to replace routine. No amount of “prompt engineering” will be faster for a real routine tasks which are necessary to perform.

    It does replace bullshit jobs. And jobs which bosses consider bullshit jobs. Thankfully the global economy is still kinda market-based, so it will compensate for the disturbance eventually, killing companies with such bosses.

    Just very slowly and painfully.

    There’s no single “capitalist system”. Marxists I’ve encountered loved to use the Duhem-Quine thesis, to support Marxist positioning of dialectics, and also to say the “real communism hasn’t been tried” in a smartass way. Well, the Duhem-Quine thesis works just as well for capitalism.

    It’s very easy to explain to anybody who worked with computers, you have your actual program and the libraries you’ve used to hack it together. When something doesn’t work, it can be with your own logic or with that of the libraries. It’s hard to be certain which it is.

    So - it’s just a new tool. It hurts us in new ways - 1) allows a machine to pretend to be human, 2) makes it even easier for a clueless human to appear understanding and to use tools which had a learning barrier, 3) introduces a Troyan horse which everybody considers necessary, because it’s the new shiny, 4) affects human magic thinking - talking to Elisa chatbot some people with mental conditions could believe things not true, now it’s become a bit more dangerous, 5) complicates any open information exchange and trustworthiness, so basically returns us to the age of rumors and trusted newspapers and just believing TV and radio, but with the social mechanisms of that old time atrophied.

    I think it’s easy to see how some points of these 5 are at least partially addressed by “capitalism” whereas for most ideas of “socialism” they are deadly.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You already have things like Visual Basic and Tcl to replace routine.

      Are you a time traveller from the 1990s?

      VB is obsolete, unmaintainable shite, and Tcl is well-defined but so minimal as to barely be a language at all, and if anyone’s using it for greenfield projects, they should have their heads examined.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        and Tcl is well-defined but so minimal as to barely be a language at all, and if anyone’s using it for greenfield projects, they should have their heads examined.

        What doesn’t it allow one to do?

        One can add Python to that list, with usefulness similar to Tcl (except being more relevant, but uglier).