Random
Source Code
Random
Summary: AI will specifically destroy jobs created by computers in the first place, preserving 'offline' jobs, while minimally impacting work quality, and preserving gross productivity.
1) The jobs that AI destroys will largely be isolated to many of the same jobs the computers created, facilitated or enabled, 2) The more that workers in a given field were reliant upon computers, the lower the percentage of them will be required to accomplish the same output after AI is deployed; this reduction in demand for workers could be up to 90% in some market segments. 3) When this happens, work quality only suffers slightly; 4) When this happens, productivity is not reduced, and some companies may scale-up fewer workers to surpass previous productivity levels.
The take-away is that jobs that were largely or entirely not dependent on computers (or which predate computer) will be less impacted by the rollout of ML and AI. These jobs include carpenters, police, paramedics, doctors, refuse workers, power linesmen.
This will remain true until corporations push culture if not laws to have androids perform those remaining jobs left to humans (e.g. carpenters, police, paramedics, doctors, refuse workers, power linesmen). At that point, society will debate whether productivity is more important that anthropocentrism and protecting a moralized, industrious, human populations.
Put forth by Zackery West, marketer, in 2024.
reworded and resubmitted
"I'm a USPS door delivery mailman, so, according to West's Theory Of Specific Economic Destruction, my job delivering mail should be fine even if the Postal Service grows more efficient at correctly routing addresses and scheduling delivery drivers."
Is that what it was? I don't know if that sounded like GENERALIZED statements about "dating and being a business owner." Sounded like "contextualized statements specifically about RECRUITMENT"
Hym "You sure? I mean, if it doesn't have anything to do with the case at hand... then saying this won't have an effect on anything... So... You sure the specificity of the statements doesn't make it NOT that? Heheheh... You sure you weren't trying to prove that the thing I said was correct? That if you can fuck them you can do whatever you want to them UP TO AND INCLUDING getting them to make you an inordinate amount of money with greater ease then every man on the planet? Maybe slap them around a little bit in the bedroom? Huh? Heheheheheheh... How would you say it differently? I mean... What you were trying to say in the video? How would you have said it? Would you have said 'A guy on urban dictionary told me how to make millions of dollars without any real effort so just did that and I made my first million exactly 1 year after he said it?' is that what you would have said? How about 'See, if you make em nut, then, you can (kind of) subtlety convince them to leave their FAMILY (which I care so much about) and turn them into little money factories and if you stack up enough of them you get 1 million dollars for little more than having a fat cock?' Is that how you would have said it? Eheheheheheh... This is fun. You're a fun guy Andy. Heh... I love being right. It really is my favorite thing. Lucky for me, Dr. Phil hasn't gotten a hold of me. I'd be in a rape farm. That wouldn't be fun. Alright. Love ya buhbye!"
Something said in such exact details that it gives a hint that the person did it.
Smegma man: Guys do you know how to fix a magnesium fire after getting circumcised in Mexico at 3:09 Am in a hospital while being deported to Puerto Rico?
Al: Dude are you alright? That was seriously specific.