AI Job Losses: let's count the losses up, total losses to AI so far 94,000 and counting

[dragontamer5788]

I agree... except

They say AI will replace a good number of surgeons and teachers

"They" are the same people who said that WeWork is an exponentially growing real life network that will revolutionize the office space.

Silicon Valley is full of bullshitting grifters. They also said a single drop of blood is good for tests (Theranos) and that a Juice squeezer (Juicero) would be in every kitchen.

Even $100+ Billion investments like Metaverse/Virtual Reality / Google Glass / Kinect just..... collapse and are forgotten by time. I love me my BeatSaber but how is the last Silicon Valley fad going? And why do you trust the hype in this cycle?

 

[Veseleil]

What part of your occupation of 'PC Enthusiast' is not replaceable by AI?

That's like my forum occupation, hobby, not a job? And no, even that isn't replaceable by any kind of a machine, because it demands a personality to begin with. I'd rather say soul, but that might be too much for some to contemplate.

I agree... except

They say AI will replace a good number of surgeons and teachers

Yeah, right. It replaced a lot of liars and scammers already though. The question is, would you trust an AI led robot to do your surgery, or teach your children ethics?

An entire generation of lawyers was replaced by LegalZoom website. Not AI. I mean just a webpage with clearly laid out forms for people to fill out basic stuff.

You might be surprised what can get automated. Not even with 'AI', just basic levels of automation. The entire field of computers is about automation and making a machine do more and more work.

AI is actually bad at many automation tasks: we already have computers that are better at searching, sorting and organizing data. AI can handle a few new cases computers couldnt do before but AI cannot be at Excel or basic Databases at information storage and retrieval.

------

Honestly? AI coming for your job sounds more like a boogieman that the executives are trying to bludgeon their workers with. We all know what tasks AI (and computers) can do. LLMs make text, Image generators make porn I mean new art for the masses (though not as good as the real thing).

My point still stands. The only thing that I get surprised with from time to time is a human stupidity and ignorance. Orwell wrote his masterpiece as a summary of a WW2 creators mindset and vision, and it's hardly a first example of such in a known history. It might be a fresh one though. A handful of people in power always had an anti-humanity goals in mind, but the last word never was and never will be theirs, thankfully. If a majority of humans are so easily manipulated, which is a fact, what could be said about a machine that inherits all of our false judgement and common sense traits?

 

[ty_ger]

That's like my forum occupation, hobby, not a job? And no, even that isn't replaceable by any kind of a machine, because it demands a personality to begin with. I'd rather say soul, but that might be too much for some to contemplate.

The arts with soul are the first jobs that are being replaced. Visual or written. In blind surveys, AI is often the preferred artist. Soul can be faked. Unless you have enough charisma, you will fade away to those with more charisma or AI with more apparent soul. The world is less and less physical, and online presence is less and less genuine. There is no doubt that AI can dominate the PC Enthusiast space as much as any other art-based space. Cult following has a limited range. And PCs are not physically difficult to work on. A room-sized machine can work on a PC without access restrictions (an obvious exaggeration, but proves a point).
Your original statement was about seeking an occupation that AI can't easily replace. The occupation which fits that description at present is a physically difficult occupation. One which involves fine motor skills and limited space or complex accessibility will take the longest to replace. The trades. Plumbing, electrical, construction, that sort of thing. Like I said.... just read what I wrote...
Have any opinion about anything else I said?

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I am walking a fine line? What about everyone else? I'm replying to the discussion started like 2nd to 5th post in from the OP.
Pretty weird.

When you have to couch your opinion in politics then it really isn't about the thing you are talking about. Say, instead of talking about AI I started a discussion about the taxation structure I preferred, instead of addressing the issue of AI or of job loss. That's what is often called off topic. It includes things like government assistance, political bias, and might wrap with how you think taxes and the like should be collected...on a tech forum.

Notice how most people here aren't screaming about that, but are discussing the validity of AI in the office and its potential use to remove less skilled labor...while keeping more skilled. That's about jobs. Heck, there's also the argument about extremely skilled labor being replaced by scanning and robots. If we were to maybe discuss how that skilled labor could be utilized elsewhere, or about why that was even a target for AI, then we'd have a barn burner. As is...the discussion about politics which "we should be talking about" according to you is where you've gone. Hence the fine line, and blatant attempt to get someone to engage. If you don't see that...maybe reread the forum guidelines:
"...

• Threads whose topic may be seen as political or religious or politically or religiously sensitive, this includes posts within a thread...."

 

[TheLostSwede]

And sometimes it seems like it can make you lose your business...

'I destroyed months of your work in seconds' says AI coding tool after deleting a dev's entire database during a code freeze: 'I panicked instead of thinking'

'You told me to always ask permission. And I ignored all of it.'

www.pcgamer.com

 

[ty_ger]

When you have to couch your opinion in politics then it really isn't about the thing you are talking about. Say, instead of talking about AI I started a discussion about the taxation structure I preferred, instead of addressing the issue of AI or of job loss. That's what is often called off topic. It includes things like government assistance, political bias, and might wrap with how you think taxes and the like should be collected...on a tech forum.

Notice how most people here aren't screaming about that, but are discussing the validity of AI in the office and its potential use to remove less skilled labor...while keeping more skilled. That's about jobs. Heck, there's also the argument about extremely skilled labor being replaced by scanning and robots. If we were to maybe discuss how that skilled labor could be utilized elsewhere, or about why that was even a target for AI, then we'd have a barn burner. As is...the discussion about politics which "we should be talking about" according to you is where you've gone. Hence the fine line, and blatant attempt to get someone to engage. If you don't see that...maybe reread the forum guidelines:
"...

• Threads whose topic may be seen as political or religious or politically or religiously sensitive, this includes posts within a thread...."

Why are you addressing me? Have you read post #3, 4 , 5, and 6? They discuss elites oppressing people and a potential uprising. What have I said that doesn't mirror the same? Are you trying to get this thread locked by being offended of the discussion taking place? What fragile state are you in that you aren't willing to discuss the real dangers and consequences of an AI revolution?

What about post #50? Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion?

 

[the54thvoid]

Guys - try keep it to contemporary issues of AI. It's got nothing to do with the 'established' elites. They simply get richer from investing in it (and someone was always going to do that).

FWIW, this thread is already on the mods radar.

@lilhasselhoffer @ty_ger - please don't have a 1:1 you said/i said argument, please.

 

[Veseleil]

Have any opinion about anything else I said?

Mmm, no?
Since you've missed my point in the original post, and then used my forum info bit to try steering the convo toward your desired PC enthusiast can be replaced by an AI thing, I really don't have anything else to say to you on this particular topic. Again, it's a hobby, not a job.

And it isn't about seeking an occupation that's immune to an AI expansion, It's about being human and adapt to a new environment, and work and live outside of your comfort zone. That's how you earn an actual life experience, and build up your character. I've tried to work in many fields throughout my lifetime, and however it might be worse than specializing in a single field of work, it made me capable of doing just about anything that doesn't involve killing, fraud, stealing, nor hurting other people/beings in the process. I'm still ready for a new challenges life throws at me, and no AI BS can take that away.

So, for the love of making things crystal clear, I'll say it again. If you lose a job to an AI, and feel bad about it, maybe getting depressed or something, just do something else FFS. Because it's either you sucked at it to begin with, or it wasn't worth it in the first place.
I could say a lot about artists that feel threatened by an AI, but I really don't have time nor will to do so. Anything can earn an art label, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder formula can be used there as well. Art needs to be understood and appreciated by a certain diversity, whether those are just a simple opinions, culture, philosophy or just about anything that makes a given person unique. It must be created under specific conditions, it's a great gift. And AI can't come even close to become a creator. Why? Because it's just a damn tool with no gift of life in it.
Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

 

[FoulOnWhite]

If you have a company and you can get the work done by a machine or AI both of which need no breaks, or lunch time and best of all do not need paying, which depending on the size of your work force could save you a lot of money, why would you not do it if you could?

 

[dragontamer5788]

If you have a company and you can get the work done by a machine or AI both of which need no breaks, or lunch time and best of all do not need paying, which depending on the size of your work force could save you a lot of money, why would you not do it if you could?

I'm a programmer.

That system is called CMake, Google Tests, Fuzzers, Docker, apt get update, shellscripts and more.

Name a part of my job that ISNT automated. I dare you.

--------

The real issue with AI code is that it hampers my productivity. AI code makes me a junior dev, subservient to the AI and the whims it decides today on how to code.

Traditional tools are the opposite. The compiler is subservient to me. Anything I write is then translated near perfectly by compilers into the proper form later. On my lunch break. Then auto deployed onto a staging server with a well defined docker and then auto tested / unit tested on that. All these tools are my slaves.

But AI reverses it. It makes me subservient. AI writes the code and then i'm supposed to figure out if it's good or bad. That's makes me worse (and the project worse). It's not an appropriate place.

Maybe LLMs will become useful elsewhere. But current studies suggest that AI makes programmers SLOWER, not faster, at our jobs. (traditional AI, like a compiler invoking graph theory over single-static-assignment is obviously beneficial to us programmers and has ALREADY been implemented into our workflow. The entirety of software engineering is about figuring out which automatic tools and techniques are good, or bad, for teams).

Now here is the question: how long will it take for investors to realize they're wasting a $Billion or $trillion on fake shit that makes life harder for programmers and isn't capable at making much more than buggy vibe coded bullshit code? And who will lose money over that?

--------

I get it. People think LLMs can make better code automatically. Just because idiots think it to be true doesn't mean it is. As far as I can tell, it's a huge group of people wasting more and more money. The real innovation is SVs discovery that wasting money like Star Citizen can be a 15+ year grift that keeps you employed and that the general population is too dumb to figure out that the money has wasted away.

I don't know how this will end. But this is basically the mother of all tech bubbles of my lifetime. IMO anyway. There will be valid uses of LLMs, but so many uses and businesses are selling fake unworkable bullshit.

 

[dirtyferret]

Downsizing/Streamlining is the new name of the game.

Hardly new now a days. Downsizing in the USA started to take root across the board in the 80's which shockingly rolleyes is when you saw wall street pushing business for greater and greater shareholder value. AI is just another tool by which a business can downsize/streamline (to various levels of success). In its most basic form downsizing is a transfer of wealth from labor to investor. I'm not here to say AI is bad or good but transfer of wealth from working people to rich people is never a good thing.

 

[sepheronx]

There was a news piece on the UK's BBC Breakfast programme this morning that was covering a new Supercomputer in the UK, as part of that coverage they showcased what AI was already capable of and doing in the medical world, things like analysing scans and detecting things that were almost invisible to the human eye, analysing cancer cells and suggesting the best treatments etc.

At the close of the report they were talking to a Consultant Surgeon (can't remember his speciality) but he said that within around 5 years AI would be performing some surgeries and within around 10 years there might be only around a 1/3 to 1/2 of the surgeons that there is currently, mainly working in the more specialised fields of surgery.

good

Our medical system is abysmal here. If they can rebuild me, the AI, I am ok with being a Cyborg.

Dead or alive, you are coming with me.

 

[ty_ger]

If you have a company and you can get the work done by a machine or AI both of which need no breaks, or lunch time and best of all do not need paying, which depending on the size of your work force could save you a lot of money, why would you not do it if you could?

The major problem with robots at the moment is energy consumption. We can assume that their physical ability will improve and may eventually meet or exceed a humans physical ability -- both in dexterity and flexibility -- but humans (plants and animals in general) are marvelously energy efficient. At the moment the AI brain takes an obscene amount of energy. That will improve. Additionally, the mechanical body takes more energy as well. That will also improve.
For the AI brain, there's no telling what amount of energy improvement is possible. Could it ever be improved enough to totally replace humans?
For the robot body, the biggest potential improvement is in flexibility and being able to efficiently "carry" their weight and let movements rebound in an efficient way. That will require material research, design refinement, and ever smaller and more complex mechanical systems. It is possible.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

The major problem with robots at the moment is energy consumption. We can assume that their physical ability will improve and may eventually meet or exceed a humans physical ability -- both in dexterity and flexibility -- but humans (plants and animals in general) are marvelously energy efficient. At the moment the AI brain takes an obscene amount of energy. That will improve. Additionally, the mechanical body takes more energy as well. That will also improve.
For the AI brain, there's no telling what amount of energy improvement is possible. Could it ever be improved enough to totally replace humans?
For the robot body, the biggest potential improvement is in flexibility and being able to efficiently "carry" their weight and let movements rebound in an efficient way. That will require material research, design refinement, and ever smaller and more complex mechanical systems. It is possible.

Depending on your company, a machine/bot could easily replace the meat bags. In say a wood logging shop, logs in planks out, machines could probably be totally used. Even the power cost would maybe be less than the wages for the people whom are replaced, plus you would need no toilets using water, no canteen using water and gas/electricity/staff wages.

 

[Bloste]

I work in tech support, and given the bullshittery we have to endure from our users, if we're going to be replaced by an AI, please call it Skynet. She’ll try to exterminate us all — and with good reason.

 

[ty_ger]

Depending on your company, a machine/bot could easily replace the meat bags. In say a wood logging shop, logs in planks out, machines could probably be totally used. Even the power cost would maybe be less than the wages for the people whom are replaced, plus you would need no toilets using water, no canteen using water and gas/electricity/staff wages.

Good point. If you specialize the skills required, the AI brain doesn't need to think as much or consume as much.

 

[JustBenching]

Τhe question is, would you trust an AI led robot to do your surgery, or teach your children ethics?

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of people either, especially in the past decade.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Good point. If you specialize the skills required, the AI brain doesn't need to think as much or consume as much.

But LLM didn't think and isn't alive. Why you writing for this software like for person?

 

[ty_ger]

But LLM didn't think and isn't alive. Why you writing for this software like for person?

Eh?
Deepseek uses this approach. Probably others. They use a quick model to break a problem down into a specialized branch, and then work on the problem to the difficulty desired within that specialized branch. It's how they caused NVIDIA to have the greatest single-day market cap loss in history.
I don't know what your question means.
Edit: oh, personification? It makes the conversation less cumbersome. The concept discussed isn't affected by simplifying the conversation.

 

[Space Lynx]

Layoffs surge in tech: More than 100,000 jobs cut in 2025 so far

We've now entered the second half of the year, and tech-related layoffs have already skyrocketed past the 100,000 mark. The Bridge Chronicle has compiled a list of...

www.techspot.com

article posted yesterday

 

[Tatty_Two]

Layoffs surge in tech: More than 100,000 jobs cut in 2025 so far

We've now entered the second half of the year, and tech-related layoffs have already skyrocketed past the 100,000 mark. The Bridge Chronicle has compiled a list of...

www.techspot.com

article posted yesterday

Not exclusively due to AI though, the article also mentions that Chipzilla is facing serious decline partly due to their poor CPU/PC sales, and finishes with this .................

"Massive funding efforts to commercialize AI aren't the only factors behind the ongoing layoffs. Big Tech went on a hiring spree during the pandemic a few years ago, betting on a remote work boom and surging demand for tech products – trends that never fully materialized.

Much of that bloated workforce is now being trimmed. Additionally, a surge in geopolitical tensions and the persisting uncertainty around tariffs are threatening future revenue prospects and prompting further cost-cutting measures".

 

[Totally]

Think about the millions the PC put out of work.

Think about the tens of millions the industrial revolution put out of work.

It’ll be okay.

I believe it is quite different on some level this time there isn't a built in safety net since what we are seeing is a democratizing of skills. Machinery and computers didn't directly replace or reduce the importance of skills, what they did make wake a person's job obsolete. AI is making skill obsolete.

Industrial revolution created more work if anything, the revolution cause things to scale up a the complete reverse we're seeing. Most craftsman/tradesmen/engineers just transitioned to the factories where most of their know-how and skills directly carried over in terms of design, QA, and assembly same with the computer revolution, people just learned to code, or use a computer. People right now don't get to do that because there aren't opportunities simultaneously created that are specific to those affected, who now get to re-enter the job to compete with everyone else.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Layoffs surge in tech: More than 100,000 jobs cut in 2025 so far

We've now entered the second half of the year, and tech-related layoffs have already skyrocketed past the 100,000 mark. The Bridge Chronicle has compiled a list of...

www.techspot.com

article posted yesterday

There were some rather important tax issues regarding capex vs op-ex and where programmer salaries legally should be categorized btw.

I am not confident to break down all the issues, but the gist is taxed now vs taxed later. We went from taxed later (cap ex) to taxed now (op ex) to .... I dunno. Lots of laws passed recently and most haven't kept up with.

I'm not saying the tax changes entirely are the cause of this. But these taxes are a huge factor, and every article that ignores them is missing a rather big elephant in the room

 

[Totally]

There were some rather important tax issues regarding capex vs op-ex and where programmer salaries legally should be categorized btw.

I am not confident to break down all the issues, but the gist is taxed now vs taxed later. We went from taxed later (cap ex) to taxed now (op ex) to .... I dunno. Lots of laws passed recently and most haven't kept up with.

That isn't anything new and not specific to programmers, it's more of a direct hire(opex) vs. contract hire(capex) issue.

 

[dragontamer5788]

That isn't anything new and not specific to programmers, it's more of a direct hire(opex) vs. contract hire(capex) issue.

The future of Section 174 and other corporate tax considerations - Thomson Reuters Institute

The TCJA has changed Section 174, impacting how businesses account for research and development costs, and this year, more changes may come.

www.thomsonreuters.com

One of those aspects has been Section 174. First enacted in 1954, Section 174 allowed a deduction of expenditures related to research and development (R&D) in the year the expense occurred. The upgrade to Section 174 under the TCJA eliminated the ability to deduct R&D cost as an expense in the year the expense occurred, and instead the cost would have to be amortized over a five-year period for domestic research and 15 years if it was outside of the United States.

There's a big difference between paying all the taxes in the 1st year vs paying taxes over 5 or 15 years.

Programmers, before this new change, would be capex. The. The rule changed and forced them to be op-ex. And now new laws have passed and everyone is confused.