r/Futurology • u/mckinseyintern • 1d ago
Discussion What if, ten years from now, everyone has to start a company because jobs have disappeared?
With the rise of AI, I’m already starting to see signs of this happening.
Creative, technical, administrative jobs… all being automated.
Will the default path in the future be to build something — with AI at your side?
To become a solo founder, using technology as an extension of your brain?
125
1d ago
[deleted]
54
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
Sooner or later they will need an employee
Not if automation can do the jobs of human employees better.
78
1d ago
[deleted]
-13
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
There wouldn't be a need to do the physical and mental work traditionally involved in founding, but one could still feel the need to found things.
28
u/Tydalj 1d ago
This is just a misconception of what it means to run a successful business. Having an idea is the easy part. Executing on it well is the hard part.
For every 1 successful executor, there are 10,000 Idea Guys and LinkedIn Thought Leaders who talk all day about their ideas and produce nothing.
If all of the work (again, that's the hard part) can be automated, then humans will be obselete and machines will do everything. There's no reason that a human-sentience-capable AI that outcompetes all of human knowledge workers couldn't start and run a company.
2
u/zetabandito 19h ago
There's no reason that a human-sentience-capable AI that outcompetes all of human knowledge workers couldn't start and run a company.
Yes. But the AI needs a reason to do so. That's where the human comes in. Kinda like an automatic light switch... It's totally capable of switching on ... But won't unless some motion is detected.
1
-12
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
The reason humans would still want to be involved in starting is because they want a share of the pie and all the benefits, but none of the actual work and responsibilities, which would be delegated to the AI.
7
u/Tydalj 1d ago
That's not the point, though.
If there is an AI capable of doing the hard part of running a business better than all humans, it should also be able to do the easy part of starting and running them. Humans would be obselete.
If an AI is capable of replacing all human creativity, problem solving, charisma, etc, why would it need humans for anything in the first place? If a human is somehow able to control it despite that, why would they care about money?
If AI ever got to that level, you'd more likely have one of the two happen:
- AI starts doing things incomprehensible to humans, in the same way that doing taxes, applying for a mortgage, or firing a gun are incomprehensible to a dog. It would be out of our control.
- A societal shift where a small group of incredibly powerful people get to wield the AI, with the rest of society as a subjugated underclass. Similar to feudalism with wealthy landowners and peasants. Running a business would be small potatoes when you have a tool capable of raising armies and controlling populations better than any human could.
Neither of these are likely to happen though, because the chances of an AI capable of replacing all of human ability are incredibly slim. All that we've done so far are create LLMs that sound convincing, but haven't come even close to replacing human ingenuity.
-2
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
It depends what you mean by "start," if you mean completing all the documents and securing the funding, yes that would be delegated to the AI, the human would simply be asking the AI to "make me money" and the AI would do the rest.
As for what the likely scenarios are, it depends on how powerful the AI is and how many people control it.
If it's very powerful and few people control it, then it leads to a strong power imbalance between those few people and everyone else, likely leading to abuse. If it's powerful and many or most people control it, then there is little to no power imbalance, people provide a check and balance against each other. If it's not powerful, and few people control it, not much power imbalance. If it's not powerful, and many or most people control it, then no power imbalance.
5
u/Backlists 1d ago
Those who control access to resources, both physical, and compute will benefit from AI.
The rest will be left for dead.
1
u/zetabandito 19h ago
the human would simply be asking the AI to "make me money" and the AI would do the rest
That means convincing a human (or possibly another AI) that the idea is a sound investment. That's a lot less objective than it seems.
If it's powerful and many or most people control it, then there is little to no power imbalance, people provide a check and balance against each other.
That's not how power works. Technology has never been checked by the people that technology exists to control. Technology is an extension of power that exists to concentrate and reinforce power
-6
u/SgathTriallair 1d ago edited 1d ago
The idea is that humans supply the drive and desire to solve problems. AI dies the actual work of solving the problems.
3
3
u/Lethalmouse1 1d ago
Two things could easily happen:
There would be pockets of people who run things. People blame "greedy rich" but also, public companies are owned by lots of people and subject to laws requiring them to make money effectively. So if I own a private company and can make 5 million/year and have automation, or I can make 1.5million a year and hire people, I can do the latter. Public companies can't, not really and not as easily.
Government involvement, I'm reminded of how historians discovered that China like hundreds of years before the Industrial revolution almost had an industrial revolution. The Bureaucrats basically regulated it out of existence. The government might literally just regulate automation to lower levels to force jobs, or make it part of corporate privilege etc. People forget the original concept of corporations in part was it's utility to the government in a way. And it's why they gain certain privileges and follow certain rules differently.
Look at utilities, there was an issue recently where a Power company had to shut down Power plants because they didn't use them. The reason they didn't use them was because laws required them to buy power from competitor plants when the competitor was cheaper. So they were effectively running power plants for no reason.
But if laws can do that, than it's not hard to imagine a world where there is some sort of maximum automation percent, or legally managed "safety observer" positions or some crap.
Lastly, when there are no jobs and no ability to have jobs for the rabble, they will either burn the world or turn rapidly into serf-slave class.
I'm sure you can farm automated cheaper than a union worker who can buy a boat. But I'm not sure you can automate cheaper than a human worker who just needs to eat the basics.....
Hell, if someone was hard up and was going to do all my chores for 3 hots and a cot, I'd hire them.
2
u/zetabandito 19h ago
Look at utilities, there was an issue recently where a Power company had to shut down Power plants because they didn't use them. The reason they didn't use them was because laws required them to buy power from competitor plants when the competitor was cheaper. So they were effectively running power plants for no reason.
Do you know if it was power generation or transmission? The latter seems more likely as in any electrical grid (AFAIK), once power is generated It must be consumed or stored to avoid overloading elements in the grid. So buying electricity from a neighboring competitor when they have low consumption makes sense to me.
Lastly, when there are no jobs and no ability to have jobs for the rabble, they will either burn the world or turn rapidly into serf-slave class.
Accurate.
I'm sure you can farm automated cheaper than a union worker who can buy a boat. But I'm not sure you can automate cheaper than a human worker who just needs to eat the basics.....
I'm not sure people understand the real cost of using AI. It's expensive and the economics don't actually make sense. Burning a quarter mile of forest for a generated picture is stupid. But the Tech VC bunch are spending the cash they were hoarding to create a new religion (AI) instead of paying that back in taxes. It's the Uber/Lyft play -- both of them are still unprofitable...
2
u/zetabandito 19h ago
It's probably not /better/ but just different. For example:
- An AI can write code at a faster rate that works and is performant but is completely indecipherable for a human and unexplainable by the AI. Is the code better? Depends... If you want to use it like a black mystery box. Yes. If you want to understand it and get other humans to trust it...no
- AI are building electrical circuits that are efficient but unexplainable. We're not putting those in chips/ships/pacemakers just yet.
2
u/dazzla2000 1d ago
Someone still needs to design, set up, run, maintain, and improve the automation at some level.
9
u/dazzla2000 1d ago
What are your prompts going to be?
Make me a business with $10,000 a month in profit.....
Hmm I'd like more money... Expand the business so it makes $20,000 a month... $100,000, $200,000...
There are billions of people that could write that.
-6
u/TrueCryptographer982 1d ago
AI will do that by self improving.
3
1
0
u/dazzla2000 1d ago
They will always need some guidance/management.
Edit: it may mean it's 10 people instead of 1,000 but there will be some.
2
u/Zomburai 1d ago
If it's 10 people instead of 1,000 across the board that just means 99% of people don't and can't work, no?
-1
u/dazzla2000 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm just saying it will be more than a solo entrepreneur.
Edit: I'm being flippant with numbers to make that point. I have no idea how this will shake out. Maybe some companies will not decrease their employees and use AI to get more out of them. I have no idea.
1
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
It could be 1 person instead of 10 people, i.e., the solo founder, who commands technology to guide/manage other technology.
1
u/theartificialkid 1d ago
Then why would humans be running companies?
1
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
The better question is why wouldn't they? The AI can do all the dirty work of running a company, but the human can be at the helm of the AI and simply provide commands for what to do.
0
1
u/NorysStorys 1d ago
And how do you as an unemployed person starting a business afford to license the tech/software and buy the hardware to run said automation? It’s not just a few bucks here and there, you’re talking $10000 buy in for stuff like this an annual licensing costs into the thousands.
1
u/bradland 1d ago
A market equilibrium always exists. That equilibrium might not be what it is today, and it might not be what makes everyone happy, but an equilibrium always exits.
Consider that every single technological advance since humans decided to stay in one spot and grow their own food has resulted in a net improvement in quality of life. There will always be a group of people who pine for the "good old days", but on a broader timescale, things always get better after the turbulence of disruption settles.
To understand this in a more practical sense, consider that "calculator" used to be a job description. Prior to computers and even digital calculators, companies kept paper ledgers. There were entire floors of office buildings occupied by people who used mechanical adding machines to tabulate the ledgers.
And then came computers. What once required hundreds of people could be accomplished by a single room full of refrigerator sized machines. And boy did people freak out, just like they are freaking out today.
What ultimately happened though is that people moved on from such rote positions and started working more complicated problems. AI feels different because it is different. That does not mean the outcome cannot be the same though. Every technological advancement is different, but the outcome is pretty damned consistent.
11
u/ComingInSideways 1d ago edited 1d ago
So I see people cart this argument out quite often, but you are missing the nuance.
Not all things are a straight line, you seem to believe that past performance predicts future outcomes.
For example you could say in the past people fought wars, but the death tolls were not consequential to the world population. Did that hold true in the past, yes, would it hold true with nuclear and biological weapons?
Your assumption is that replacing workers with AI and Robotics will still allow 8 billion people to have a job? Or even just 340 million people in the US?
So back to your point about computers…. Your point with computers not putting people out of work is sort of misleading. The correct question is how many jobs were NOT created because we did not need the jobs that computers facilitated.
People (work hours) to save files in triplicate, and file them, look them up, and walk down aisles and count items, etc, etc, etc. I don’t think it will take you long to realize that while people might not have lost their jobs, except by attrition, jobs that computers soaked up would have needed many more work hours than are needed with them.
Computers vastly improved productivity, which is a code word to indicate, more work hours per $. Meaning by extension less workers. If the end result would have required the same amount of workers even on the computer maintenance side, it would have been an inconsequential advance.
So let’s now dissect that. If AI replaces jobs that require reasoning, and robotics replace jobs that require physical labor, where are the jobs that are left that don’t fit in that Venn diagram?
The other thing that people trot out when they bring up your logic, is “We have no idea what new jobs might be created.”. This is absolutely pure pollyanna conjecture.
Is it fixing AI, and robotics? How many robot service workers will be needed? 1 for every 10? I hate to break it to you but if automations can handle reasoning tasks and physical tasks they can fix each other.
Will there be some people needed? Sure, but a hell of a lot (billions) less than are needed now. Again your mistake is assuming past performance indicates future outcomes when it comes to extraordinary paradigm shifts. For a comical anecdotal just look at where the stock market is today.
EDIT: Fix some grammar errors.
2
u/KanedaSyndrome 13h ago
Agree completely. There are no work for humans when AI can do what humans can do and do it better. There's living in the wild as farmers left basically.
2
u/Superb_Raccoon 1d ago
Or even just 340 million people in the US?
The labor pool is not 340 million. It half that at 171 million or so.
4
u/ComingInSideways 1d ago
You are right, my bad, and of course 8 Billion people are not all of working age, but the premise remains the same.
1
u/KanedaSyndrome 13h ago
Irrelevant to the point
1
u/Superb_Raccoon 11h ago
Facts and getting them right are always relevant.
Or just don't include it in your arguement.
-1
u/bradland 1d ago
This is a lot of words to say I don't know the future. I agree. I don't, but neither do you.
What I do know is that every time we've seen a major advancement, things have gotten better. Pointing out all the ways this is different doesn't really prove anything, because every major technological advancement has been different.
IMO, the reason the means of change doesn't matter is that humans appear to be hard wired to struggle towards progress. Put another way, a significant portion of humanity wants to work in some capacity. So long as that desire exists, we'll find ways to keep ourselves busy.
I'd also point out that whatever equilibrium we achieve does not automatically assume that advanced AI will be part of the equation. Disruptions that really break societal norms are met with resistance. If AI is as disruptive as you suggest it will be, there will be a massive uprising against it. Viewed on a broad enough scale, humanity is no different than any other organism. Survival is job #1.
3
u/ComingInSideways 1d ago edited 1d ago
I agree we will have to adapt or parish.
However your first post treats this casually and suggests like all previous advancements things will rumble forward, as it is “pretty damn consistent”.
My view is that this will be a paradigm shift for the human race, not of the ilk of machines that are tools, but that machines replace our labor.
And you say, we are hard wired to work, however, where will we work, for what purpose? We can want to work all we want, but if the people who pay the bills don’t need workers it does not matter.
And if you want to start your own business, you will need resources and capital. However if you can’t gather them by putting together a nest egg from someone else how will you gather them? This is what people seem to gloss over, most of the world works for someone else, be it private enterprise, a government, or customers…
So when wealth is centralized with conglomerates that control the automations, who do we work for? We end up being subsistence level farmers if we are lucky enough to have the land.
Just answer a simple straightforward question, if AI can assume the roles that require reasoning, and robotics (as an extension of AI) can take over the roles of physical labor, what do the 8 billion people on earth do with their will to work?
I never said we would not move toward “equilibrium“, as ALL systems do (Even nuclear explosions move back towards equilibrium). ;) What I am pointing out is that some equilibriums are built on suffering and injustice, I believe this will be one.
I am not saying I am not approaching this from a negative perspective, however, I do believe that things will not be rosy, nor pleasant in the next decades, at least in some parts of the world that do not enact changes.
Even today without a fully formed AI:
My point is complacently sitting by with a “it will be fine” attitude to me, is a poor decision making process. And one I will call out.
EDIT: I did not down vote you by the way. But I did not upvote you either.
2
u/KanedaSyndrome 13h ago
I agree completely. I down voted him, I find the opinion dangerous and ignorant. I'm normally not down voting people, I try to respect all nuance, but when something spread dangerous ideas I down vote.
1
u/ComingInSideways 10h ago
Yes, my problem is just the "it will all be fine" attitude. Basically, because being aware of how it can all go sideways is important.
It might not, but well what is better, just going along for the ride, or being an active participant.
2
u/Superb_Raccoon 1d ago
We might be street buskars playing to amuse the robots as they go to work. They will toss us tiny fractions of a bitcoin if their RNG so decides.
So start dancing, meatbag!
1
u/KanedaSyndrome 13h ago
We absolutely know that all human jobs are gone when AI can do what humans can do and do it better and cheaper. There's only self-employment left.
This is not an unknown thing just because you say so. Your argument that previous technological improvements lead to new jobs is flawed and myopic. That argument only holds as long as humans were still the smartest being on Earth. When AI is as smart or smarter, then that argument falls apart.
What jobs are left for the Apes that the humans haven't taken?
Thousands/millions of jobs are already gone and industries dead because of AI
3
u/Tydalj 1d ago
I disagree with the following:
every single technological advance since humans decided to stay in one spot and grow their own food has resulted in a net improvement in quality of life.
When it comes to personal quality of life, some of these "advancements" are actually faustian bargains. A key example would be the car. A person could previously do everything they needed to on foot or the occasional horse carriage. With the car (and the building of cities around them), a person now needs a car to live a normal life in most American cities. This leads to lower health due to decreased exercise, higher stress from dealing with traffic, and additional headaches of maintaining and paying for a vehicle. I'd call this a net loss.
Additionally, "advances" in food production have lead to lower quality food. Sure, we can produce massive amounts of it at lower costs, but a medieval peasant never had to wonder if their stew had microplastics, hormones, or red dye 40 in it.
The advent of social media/ the internet are fantastic with the free access to massive amounts of information, but the result for many people has been getting stuck in information silos (Ex: algorithmically getting fed only information that they already believe), leading to a breakdown in societal cohesion. People are also getting mentally lazier with shorter attention spans as they acclimate to simple, short-form content and outsource more of their thinking to the internet/ LLMs.
So I don't belive that all of technology has resulted in an overall quality of life improvement for humans. Stoves, vacuums and air conditioning? Yeah, those probably have. But many haven't, and are actually net harmful to quality of life. We accept them as a society anyway because the downsides are often hidden and long-term while the benefits are obvious and immediate, but end up paying the price for them later regardless.
2
u/ComingInSideways 15h ago
Yes, nicely stated. the only way we would know if some “advancements” were actually beneficial, would be to A/B a timeline.
As many negatives take many years to become apparent, or are buried in the din of so many factors we would never know.
Plus very often one persons idea of beneficial and another's is based on where they fall in society.
2
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
AI feels different because it is different. That does not mean the outcome cannot be the same though.
And it does not mean the outcome will be the same either.
As you've alluded to, a trend generally exists where advances in technology reduce the amount of human input required to accomplish tasks. It has reduced it down to zero workers needed in some tasks, such as the various tasks that used to exist with human calculators and computers. Therefore, it is conceivable that technology can replace the need for human workers in some task.
What ultimately happened though is that people moved on from such rote positions and started working more complicated problems.
There is no reason to believe this is a given, especially if AI becomes capable of thinking and doing better than humans in general.
1
u/YsoL8 1d ago
Even if AI does generate new jobs, AI is the turning point technology where whatever those jobs are will be simple to automate too, the likelihood is that we'll see some kind of last gleaming situation where those new jobs last less than a decade and then the technology moves on. Its less the new way the world works and more the last gasp of the current worker dependent economics.
1
u/Tydalj 1d ago
I disagree with the following:
every single technological advance since humans decided to stay in one spot and grow their own food has resulted in a net improvement in quality of life.
When it comes to personal quality of life, some of these "advancements" are actually faustian bargains. A key example would be the car. A person could previously do everything they needed to on foot or the occasional horse carriage. With the car (and the building of cities around them), a person now needs a car to live a normal life in most American/ Australian/ Canadian cities. This leads to lower health due to decreased exercise, higher stress from dealing with traffic, and additional headaches of maintaining and paying for a vehicle. I'd call this a net loss.
Additionally, "advances" in food production have lead to lower quality food. Sure, we can produce massive amounts of it at lower costs, but a medieval peasant never had to wonder if their stew had microplastics, hormones, or red dye 40 in it.
The advent of social media/ the internet are fantastic with the free access to massive amounts of information, but the result for many people has been getting stuck in information silos (Ex: algorithmically getting fed only information that they already believe), leading to a breakdown in societal cohesion. People are also getting mentally lazier with shorter attention spans as they acclimate to simple, short-form content and outsource more of their thinking to the internet/ LLMs.
So I don't belive that all of technology has resulted in an overall quality of life improvement for humans. Stoves, vacuums and air conditioning? Yeah, those probably have. But many haven't, and are actually net harmful to quality of life. We accept them as a society anyway because the downsides are often hidden and long-term while the benefits are obvious and immediate, but end up paying the price for them later regardless.
6
u/Superb_Raccoon 1d ago
Surprise!
The number of sole proprietors filing 2021 returns was 29.3 million individuals
Firms with fewer than 10 employees accounted for 78.5%.
When nonemployer businesses are taken into account – there were 26.5 million in 2018 (latest data) – the share of U.S. businesses with fewer than 20 workers increases to 98.0% and the share with fewer than 10 employees registers 96.0%.
3
u/Alpha3031 Blue 1d ago
How many of those are people that need to take up ubereats as a side gig or something similar though?
1
u/Superb_Raccoon 1d ago
1099 contractors don't count. They are counting business licenses and filing as sole proprietors, which 1099 is not the same.
1
u/Alpha3031 Blue 1d ago
You are not prohibited from registering as a sole proprietor for ubereats, so I don't see how you can exclude that unless your data source explicitly and specifically says it excludes people carrying out a business specifically for these gig economy platforms.
1
u/Superb_Raccoon 1d ago
Yes, you could be both. But being a sole proprietor makes you responsible for any liabilities your business incurs. So there is a hefty insurance penalty if you don't want to be sued out of existence.
That is different than just a 1099 contractor, with "pass through income" although some choose to do that for tax reasons, especially since tax liability for an uber driver is pretty low.
1
0
u/KanedaSyndrome 13h ago
No they won't, they will use AI since AI will be able at everything a human can and better.
What they will do, if they don't own anything, is to live in the woods in a tribal society in a parallel society in a parallel economy for people that can't afford to employ AI.
18
u/RobertSF 1d ago
What if, ten years from now, everyone has to start a company because jobs have disappeared?
Under the best of conditions, we would be reduced to Bangladesh-style poverty. That's because no one person can, for example, build a car to sell. Or a refrigerator. Instead, we would all collect recycling, sell food out of our kitchen windows, and run errands.
21
u/djdante 1d ago
I think it’s far more likely that employee roles will start expanding as their working power becomes higher - having a company is a lifestyle many people would not enjoy - it lacks security, even in modern day when jobs aren’t so secure anymore
11
u/rickylancaster 1d ago
In a better reality we’d just be looking at AI helping us get a lot more done, faster. Everyone is more productive, but the same number of jobs are still needed to do it all.
2
u/Nixeris 22h ago
I don't know about "better reality". Automation makes people capable of being several times more productive than 50 or 100 years ago, but it hasn't led to a more relaxed work standard for most people. Instead we're just expected to work to the limits of human capability each day, 8(+)hrs a day, with any downtime viewed by corporations as "theft" by the workers. It's just that now it produces more than it used to.
3
u/KMKtwo-four 1d ago
Go back 150 years. Working in a factory or office is a lifestyle many people would not enjoy.
Imagine being beholden to your employer instead of being able to grow the food you need. It lacks security.
2
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
Why would AI raise worker's bargaining power? Wouldn't it increase competition on the labor side of things, because the labor of workers are more easily replaceable, thus decreasing the bargaining power of each individual worker?
2
u/djdante 1d ago
I didn’t say it increased bargaining power… I said increased working power… technology has always done this…
So one employee today can often do the work of 10 people 100 years ago for example… production always increases with technology.
So that just means that companies can build more faster so to speak. Not that employees aren’t needed or can work less than they used to.
3
u/JCPRuckus 1d ago
Who's going to buy the additional stuff? Surely not the workers who are making more stuff, but not more money. That's why layoffs happen, because it's way easier to make the same amount you already sell with less workers than find a new market for a whole bunch more product because you kept all of the workers.
3
2
u/DataKnotsDesks 1d ago
I hear you, but, as someone who's been self employed for the majority of my working life, I wonder whether "job security" is over. Yes, of course it's scary—but by having several parallel "mini-careers" security can be engineered through flexibility. If you're not making money as a CEO this month, are you making money selling your pottery, renting out your spare room, being a taxi driver or maybe a plumber! Or all of the above? It becomes possible for people to do all sorts of diverse things, and to mix them up in new combinations that completely mess up ideas about social class, blue collar and white collar.
Is this "a good thing"? I genuinely don't know—but I do know that the more flexibility each person has, the more they're able to move on if the work dries up, or their boss takes the mickey.
8
u/rickylancaster 1d ago
It’s not a good thing. Not at all. Juggling that kind of schedule and maintaining your commitments to all can be awful. It doesn’t fit well with a normal human lifestyle. How are people fitting in time/mental clarity for making sure they eat well and exercise? Sleep would be a big factor and probably something you’d be sacrificing often, which reduces performance and can be dangerous. And how can anyone do it for any significant period of time if they’re also trying to care for their family and tend to childcare needs?
I honestly question whether or not humans are wired for that kind of scattered focus while maintaining commitment and avoiding burnout. I lean towards thinking we are not.
1
u/DataKnotsDesks 1d ago
I genuinely don't know. I've never had a normal job. But it sounds pretty stressful to me, just doing one thing! The key to the multi-role thing is not to be an overachiever. Just do stuff at a tempo that's sustainable, rather than with hyper-focused ambition. Trouble is, of course, that's what people have been taught!
5
u/JCPRuckus 1d ago
I genuinely don't know. I've never had a normal job. But it sounds pretty stressful to me, just doing one thing!
Have you considered that you haven't had a normal job because this sentiment is not normal. Normal people like stability and hate change. Most people would literally rather continue a routine they hate, rather than risk trying something new or different.
What you describe is a nightmare for most people. How am I paying my bills next month if none of my 10 jobs are popping?
The key to the multi-role thing is not to be an overachiever. Just do stuff at a tempo that's sustainable, rather than with hyper-focused ambition. Trouble is, of course, that's what people have been taught!
10 jobs that are all popping 10% of the time is not equivalent to having work 100% of the time. So now you have no choice but to double and triple dip when work overlaps just to be prepared when everything is fallow... Not to mention that turning down work likely means losing a source of work in the future. Ambition has nothing to do with it. Overworking becomes a necessity because periods with no work are a certainty.
20
u/HotHamBoy 1d ago
A large amount of people will just struggle for employment
I suspect a we are actually heading towards a counter-cultural movement that rejects AI and a digital lifestyle
I don’t think people will be able to just “start their own jobs” US population alone is 341M people
We’re heading to a place where people have no money to spend, so who’s going to pay you?
5
u/Tom_Art_UFO 1d ago
I hope we're heading for a rejection of AI. Hopefully it'll turn into another of those wonder-techs that fizzle out, like virtual reality.
12
3
2
u/Elctsuptb 1d ago
You really think people are going to reject AI after it disovers cures for all diseases?
3
u/Tom_Art_UFO 17h ago
I was referring to generative AI. As an artist, I really hope people reject it.
9
u/Skepsisology 1d ago
Money will become meaningless with the advent of a perfect AI workforce... But only if that AI is used to solve the problem of necessary but undesirable labour. However, the way things are going, AI will be used to replace the expensive "superstars and artists" that drive culture - cheap low wage labour will continue to be carried out by humans. Low financial compensation for the work carried out by people is a type of prison, an inescapable one too.
A fully capable robotic workforce powered by current AI would significantly reduce the amount of low wage/ poverty stricken populations. The money saved by not needing to pay people wages could be used for the improvement in quality of life across society.
But no, AI is instead used to generate shovel-slop while humans watch trillions of dollars evaporate into thin air one day and magically reappear the next.
4
u/pdxf 1d ago
Yeah, I think this is where we're headed (and the most optimistic stance I've had regarding AI). As someone who builds things online, I now have the equivalent of a small team working for me, and it's making bigger and more complicated things more within my reach. I'm sure many others will realize this as well, and there will be far more individuals doing pretty big things. It should be pretty interesting to see.
3
u/timClicks 1d ago
Humanity has not found a way to liberate most people from wage slavery yet, despite centuries of progress to increase productivity. We seem to have an endless capacity to create work to do.
3
u/jaskier89 1d ago
Well, that's because liberating people was never the goal. The productivity increase that resulted from machinery, computers, the internet and now AI hace never and probably will never be leveraged towards the average guy having to do fewer hours or earn significantly more.
The reason we went from 16 hour work days to roughly 8 hour work days was people striking and fighting for their rights. Ever since then, every technological leap was exploited for the owning class to gain more, not to work towards making life better for everyone. That was always at most a breadcrumb byproduct of it, just enough to not have an outright French revolution again, but not nearly enough to have true societal change or quality of life for everyone.
The way was found time and time again, but why would the ones in power work towards a world where they have less control? Or share the benefits with more people than they have to?🤷🏼♂️
2
u/rickylancaster 1d ago
Look at LinkedIn. It is littered now with start up “geniuses” calling themselves “Founders” and somehow working AI intro their Founder tagline, no matter what the product of service. It could be something finance related, real estate construction related, recruiting related. They’re all “Founders” and they’re all promoting themselves as AI-leveraging experts. It’s kind of insane actually. How much of that is realistically going to net out to profitable and sustainable?
5
u/aq1018 1d ago
Let’s play a thought experiment:
- AI gets better and better over the years. It replaces more and more employees.
- Business can produce goods with less employees and becomes more profitable.
- However, sales fall because there are less people that can afford to buy.
- Companies are forced to reduce price because lower demand, however they can still be profitable due to reduced cost.
- High unemployment causes social unrest
- Government enacts universal basic income.
- Demand and supply stabilizes due to UBI
- Repeat from beginning.
So eventually, all cost of goods approaches zero and true communism arrives.
This is assuming social unrest doesn’t cause dictatorships to arise throughout the world however.
3
u/larz334 1d ago edited 1d ago
If AI models can make it so a solo founder can make a business, why would a customer not just ask the AI model to do what that business does themselves?
We're not headed towards democratization, we're headed towards feudalism, whoever operates the AI clusters will be the lords
It is kind of funny that AI bros can manage to believe they'll have the one job that's not automatable.
3
u/GoofAckYoorsElf 17h ago
The superrich will try to suck off almost all wealth and leave a bare minimum to the rest of the world. There is only two possible outcomes:
- we let them and live in poverty
- we don't
4
u/ibh400main 1d ago
I was complaining about how my kid's teachers are letting their classes get away with using AI to write their papers. Someone pointed out to me that they need to learn how to use it for the future ahead of them. Got me thinking.
2
1
u/YsoL8 1d ago
Depending on how old your kids are its possible that by the time they leave school society is already in the later stages of trying to work out how full automation works socially.
I think that a kid starting school this year is unlikely to work in the sense we mean it beyond about 30 unless they end up in some extraordinary skill area.
Some of the robotics companies are targeting 2027 for a real world domestic bot to be on sale and thats only going to be the start of it.
5
u/Feeling_Actuator_234 1d ago edited 1d ago
You don’t create a company without demand and funds and gaining trust from people.
Then you’ll need to scale. With 24h in your day, you’ll need an accountant, employees and all. Aka you’ll create jobs aka people who didn’t create a company.
Not everybody is an entrepreneur or leader.
I don’t understand what brought you to this conclusion…
-4
u/mckinseyintern 1d ago
You're describing the traditional startup arc:
Build → hire → scale → become a manager of managers.But that’s exactly the model AI is dismantling.
In the AI era, we're seeing a new kind of founder:
- No need to hire a designer — use Midjourney.
- No need for dev teams — use AI dev agents.
- No need for accountants — plug into AI-driven no-code tools.
- No need to scale teams — scale operations with autonomous agents.
You don’t outsource anymore. You orchestrate. This isn’t about everyone being a “CEO” or “visionary”. It’s about survival in a world where most jobs are gone.
When jobs vanish, you either create systems or become dependent on the few who do.
We're not saying everyone will become an entrepreneur. But we're saying many will have no other economic path.
6
u/MrGulio 1d ago
If we get to that point (and that's an exceptionally generous assumption) what would be the point of doing it from an economic perspective? If individuals can learn to use the same tools and given AI companies, let's say liberal idea of copyright, why should I give anyone money for anything that's been fully generated? Why wouldn't I just generate exactly the same thing or something suited to what I may want more?
0
u/mckinseyintern 17h ago
Excellent point. If everyone had access to the same tools, the game would, in theory, be leveled. But in practice, equal access doesn’t create equal intention, nor equal vision.
AI can democratize power, but it doesn’t distribute meaning.
The difference doesn’t lie in the tool — it lies in who can orchestrate it with purpose.Many will hold the same brushes. Few will know how to paint living systems.
Many will access the same reactor. Few will know how to channel its energy to build something unique.The real scarcity in this new era will not be capital or technology — it will be clarity of vision.
In the end, it’s not about “everyone becoming a founder.”
It’s about the fact that, in a world without jobs, founding might be the only path to remain relevant.1
u/MrGulio 17h ago
Many will hold the same brushes. Few will know how to paint living systems.
This is a pretty ironic example given the current discussion around AI art don't you think?
The crux of my point still stands that when you make it such that accessible tools removes labor the value goes down because the scarcity of the product also goes down.
0
u/mckinseyintern 16h ago
You’re absolutely right — when tools become abundant, the value of execution alone declines.
But that’s precisely where intention, orchestration and narrative begin to matter more than ever.
If labor defined value in the past, meaning will define value in the future.
AI lowers the cost of production to nearly zero — so what remains scarce is the ability to assemble, contextualize and direct those infinite outputs towards something that actually moves people.
It’s not about making another painting. It’s about designing a movement.
Founders of this new era won’t be paid for what they produce — They’ll be followed for what they envision.
And if we observe closely, this future is already leaking into the present.
How many upper-class families fund a boutique café, a clothing store, or a small brand — not to generate profit, but to give someone they love a sense of purpose?
It’s not about revenue. It’s about identity, meaning, presence.
These are luxury hobbies today. But in a world where AI automates most labor, they might become the only way to feel alive.
Creating something — even if it doesn’t scale — will be the new meditation, the new rebellion, the new employment.
The café you open tomorrow with AI… might just be your spiritual successor to a 9-to-5.
1
u/tastydee 4h ago
Number 1, stop using AI to answer your posts for you.
Number 2, the cafe you open with AI? Are you kidding? In a TINY town of 5,000 people, how many can possibly open a cafe, or be a plumber, or be a writer, or be a sculptor? How will they afford the upfront capital to do any of it? AI is great for thinking and ideas, but when it comes to actual hardware/storefronts/land/equipment, you're going to need money. Money that you don't have because automation replaced your job.
Complete idiocy.
1
u/Feeling_Actuator_234 1d ago edited 1d ago
Absolutely not dismantling that arc.
Any expert using AI will tell you the short comings of it.
I am a UX designer, a user researcher and an artist which, given the ton of work I got do in marketing, reaching to venues, organising a band, joint bands, managing admin, is quite the self entrepreneurial journey.
AI isn’t dismantling none of what I do. It’s an accelerator at best. Which is great but jumping to conclusions like you did. We got LLMs and thousands people are still asking “how do I talk to Siri” in iPhone’s sub.
I don’t think you realise the extent of the simplification you furthering into. Even 40% of people forced to be entrepreneurs but failing at make for a society that will die in months.
Also, you’re basically changing the definition of founding a company to fit your projections. But it’s your projections that lack substance
1
u/marigolds6 14h ago
And who is doing all the labeling to train the models to build these agents? Missing from this is that model training is still ridiculously expensive and will continue to be.
That means that the competitive marketplace among different models will remain small with a high demand for improvement that will be a long term barrier to entry.
And that’s when the companies who train models will recoup their investments, and those founders who take the above path will realize that what they can’t scale is constantly paying for more and more request slots.
2
u/kayl_breinhar 1d ago
Our machine overlords will rule us while we hunt the descendants of the idiots who handed the world over to them so their parents could spend their last 20-30 years living to levels of excess which would make the robber barons of the 1920s and 30s blush in envious shame.
And then we'll make fine leather crafts out of their skin and whittle little charms and figurines out of their bones. Gotta have those side hustles.
2
u/dazzla2000 1d ago
Solo entrepreneurs will still need to compete with larger companies. Those companies will have teams of people that are using AI as an extension of their brain. Those larger companies may not have as many employees as they might right now but they will still need some people.
2
u/crymachine 1d ago
You will more likely end up as prison labor since that's the modern slavery. Most cultures don't provide a basic income, quality of life, anything so I don't know why you'd think you or most people would be boosted up in the economy instead of thrown down.
2
u/klone_free 1d ago
The ramifications of that many singular companies and the need to improve technology in order to compete or differentiate your product seems like it'd be a fast track to destroying us.
2
u/arbpotatoes 1d ago
No fucking thank you. Hope there's a UBI so I can live my life instead of hustling eternally.
2
u/Holiday-Pea-1551 1d ago
It is more likely that the difference will be between the people who own stock and the people who do not. If AI is at a point where it replaced most type of work then entrepreneurship won't matter. What can a small business do more than a large corporation that has scale and capital can't already do if manpower is scalable with capital?
If you are scared about an AI fuelled distopia, earn enough now to ensure your next generation is independently wealthy and doesn't need to work. Whatever people say in the news, it is clear that for the next 50y there will plenty of employment in most of the world. Even more so with the declining birth rates.
The AI/robotics replacement theory is likely a problem for your grandchildren's.
2
u/sleepystaff 1d ago
If AI literally gets to the point where it can do all jobs that means this AI can be a teacher, doctor, waiter, laborer in any construction job, postdoc or assistant in any knowledge level work, and all around personal assistant.
If we ever got to that point, humanity would be wrestling with a different type of question because our current societal structure would fall apart with a lot less need to revolve around work / 40 hours work week.
2
u/Mawootad 1d ago
If AI can run the entirety of your business why would we need businesses at all? If AI can do the job of engineers and researchers and writers and marketers and managers and everything in between why would a founder be adding anything useful to that pile? You think humans are gonna be better idea guys than a computer who can take your vague idea and turn it into a fully functioning business by itself? At that point just let AI run the entire economy and let people leisure, why would we maintain capitalism in a society where human labor isn't useful.
2
u/Drivingfinger 1d ago
One has to wonder a little about the dystopian corporate future we've been encouraging since the 70s...
If a corporation sources their jobs to the lowest cost option (ala capitalism), then yes, regular folks will be left without regular jobs, across all industries. This creates a dwindling population of potential buyers of product. So corporations will likely price themselves out of the market(s) despite being the cheapest source for a product simply because the % of people who can afford said product, is not going to be high enough for that product to be viable.
So.. a shortage of jobs means a shortage of money being spent on the economy, which means a shortage of product being sold. I feel like corps are going to be faced with the inevitable truth: they are parasites that cannot live without the host population.. and they will have to make a choice based on survival rather than profits (unlikely.. I know).. I really think that if a corporation is going to be successful exist in 50-100 years, they're going to have to take on some social responsibility towards their consumers.
I think it likely ends in fallout-style corporate vaults ... I mean.. trump is already vault boy. Blonde hair, blue suit, thumbs up.
2
u/jrp55262 1d ago
Who's going to buy what you're offering? If the mega-corps can underbid you on price due to automation and economies of scale, and everyone else is a solo entrepreneur just barely squeaking by, how much are you actually going to be able to sell to whom?
2
u/thatmikeguy 1d ago
This will be a resources vs services problem, and it will happen differently depending on where you are in the world.
2
u/Poly_and_RA 20h ago
If jobs have disappeared, then there's also no jobs for new companies. Companies exist to create products and services that can be sold to someone at a profit.
If that's still possible in amounts similar to today then jobs *haven't* disappeared, and if it's NOT possible, then it makes no difference whether you're an employee in a company that has no jobs -- or you're the owner of a company that has nothing to do; either way it's a bust.
1
u/hawkwings 1d ago
Many small businesses are jobs where you are paid differently. You could start a janitorial business. You would still be a janitor, but you would be paid differently. The problem is that if all janitors are replaced by robots, then a janitorial business won't work either.
1
u/liveprgrmclimb 1d ago
At 12-15% unemployment a recession will hit. I predict people will demand regulation of AI.
2
u/YsoL8 1d ago
Wouldn't work even if attempted. Your country does it, any significant economy doesn't, that economy just comprehensively outcompeted you and not its not just jobs disappearing but the economy too.
So then you probably start using tariffs to protect your own industries which works for while and then to your dismay you realise that the only real effect its having is to make your imports more expensive or impossible and pricing you out of the international market even further. So you end up near bankrupt having driven your own economy into the floor while everyone else is working out how to make it work for them and befitting, and end up having to let foreign internationals in who put your domestic industry in the bin and going to the world bank for loans.
This isn't cynicism btw, this is exactly how the UK reacted to the advent of computerised industry in the 70s. Ended up with rubbish being piled in major London squares and the government literally forcing people to buy totally inferior domestic cars just to keep finished factories open before it was over because it was politically unacceptable to allow mass labour manufacturing to end.
1
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 1d ago
You're not alone in thinking this, I've thought of this too.
Technology could automate entire supply chains, with you at the helm.
1
u/nicoy3k 23h ago
No it can’t, you have no idea how complex supply chains are and how one fuck can break everything unless you have someone that can solve problems outside the box and/or identify unpredictable problems outside the chain. Like make a phone call to a guy in India because the labels are being put in upside down
1
u/baker8491 1d ago
Is this a meme or are the intelligence services that transparently stupid these days?
1
u/greatdrams23 1d ago
If all the jobs have gone, then the job if starting and running companies has gone.
1
1
u/YsoL8 1d ago
In a full automation world theres only really 2 basic schemes I can see working:
* Governments tax robotic / AI labour however that is defined and use that tax to support the population
* Governments own national robotics companies which on some technicality own all the robots / AI and loan them out, with the profits supporting the population
There are a few variations but thats basically the 2 options. The primary economic aim of all governments would then be to take advantage of the total lack of labour limitations to grow the economy to a huge size to produce the required revenue.
This would become large enough to cover 200 / 300 percent of the material need eventually, with increasingly generic everything factories often engaged in non production but money spinning activity much of the time (in other words, simply ticking over at idle), at which point its time for a serious discussion about post scarcity economics because you've just created a non labour world that can casually flood the market with any conceivably needed commodity or service at zero notice in any situation short of large parts of the world being on fire.
1
1
u/Timeformayo 1d ago
The Republican Party has brought back entrepreneurship!
Street urchins: "$5 for a fresh chicken egg, fine sir?"
/s (I hope)
1
u/Superb_Raccoon 1d ago edited 1d ago
Surprise! *The future is already here.*
Prevalence: 99.9% of businesses in the US are small businesses.
- Number of Small Businesses: There are approximately 33.3 million small businesses in the US.
- Employment: Small businesses employ approximately 47% of the private sector workforce.
- Job Creation: Small businesses are responsible for a significant portion of job creation, contributing to 63% of new jobs created from 1995 to 2021.
- GDP Contribution: Small businesses represent 43.5% of the US Gross Domestic Product.
- Survival Rates:
- 67.6% of new employer establishments survive at least two years.
- 48.9% survive five years.
- 33.6% survive ten years.
- 25.7% survive fifteen years.
- Exports: Small businesses represent 97.3% of all exporters and 32.6% of known export value.
- Demographics:
- In 2021, about 61% of small businesses were majority-owned by men, 22% by women, and 14% equally by men and women.
- Most (85%) had majority-White ownership in 2021, with smaller shares majority-owned by Asian Americans (11%), Hispanic adults (7%), and Black or African American adults (3%).
- Challenges: Small businesses face challenges such as reduced demand, supply chain disruptions, cash flow problems, inflation, and rising labor costs.
- New Business Applications: The number of applications filed to start new businesses has surged in recent years.
- Industry Sectors: Leading industries for small businesses include professional and business services, financial activities, and wholesale and retail trade.
1
u/4runner_wheelin 1d ago
Free checks coming to everyone’s bank account in the future. Learn how to paint or meditate. Create fresh meals everyday. Can’t wait
1
u/Klutzy-Smile-9839 1d ago
No.
More of us will provide essential services for which adding more people provides benefit (healthcare, elementary school teachers).
Starting company for competing other companies/products? This is a zero sum game imo.
1
u/confusedguy1212 1d ago
In the US there’s already a very strong incentive to do so since Trump’s first term overhaul of the tax code. Basically everybody and anything is a business now and if you don’t you’re out gaming yourself.
1
u/HesThePianoMan 1d ago
Been in business for 10+ years
You'd be surprised at the most basic things that cause 90% of businesses to fail
It's not as simple as starting it, it's all the other stuff:
Who needs it? What's the problem you solve? Why are you better? How do you find customers?
Etc.
1
u/Reasonable_South8331 1d ago
Whatever it ends up being, it’s gonna be worse for those who don’t see it coming and prepare accordingly
1
u/Salt_Fox435 1d ago
It’s already happening in some niches — people using AI as co-founders, building products or services solo. But not everyone is wired to be an entrepreneur. If jobs vanish and self-employment becomes the norm, we’ll need a major shift in how society supports risk-takers and redistributes value. Otherwise, we’re just automating ourselves into a new kind of inequality.
1
u/lloydsmith28 1d ago
I mean i imagine there will always be some place for human workers even if it's to monitor/supervise AI/automation because even in production/warehouse jobs where most things are automated you still need people to make sure things keep working as intended, there might be a lower amount of people required but i imagine they won't go away entirely or just be reduced, or we need to learn to adapt to our changing ways and have some other form of jobs for us or hopefully as many have been mentioning, UBI
1
u/jello_house 12h ago
I can totally see us having to adapt to new ways with AI. Like when people first started using smartphones, they had to figure out all the cool apps that didn’t exist before. Running your own business could be the new thing. Tools like Canva and Buffer make creating and scheduling content way easier now. Another neat tool is XBeast, which helps businesses grow with minimal effort on Twitter. It'd be cool if UBI happened too, so folks could try out new jobs worry-free. Who wouldn’t want some extra stability, right?
1
u/lloydsmith28 11h ago
I don't really think everyone should start just randomly making a business unless they wanted to, i think a more appropriate direction people could go is art and science, i imagine a lot of people would love to quit their job and be some sort of artist or something similar, or go into sciences to research more advanced technologies, personally i would love to work on video games or some sort of software but I'm currently not able to because i have to work to pay the bills and i don't have enough to finish school and do what i want (ran into some issues awhile back and haven't had the money to go back) would love the freedom to do something i actually enjoy
1
1
u/asdzebra 1d ago
If AI is really that strong to replace all jobs, why would there still be need for humans to found companies?
1
u/NUMBerONEisFIRST Gray 1d ago
I did this in 2008 when I was in my early 20s.
I didn't have a degree, and didn't have experience yet. The economy was such shit that places were only hiring highly educated people with expensive degrees and experience.
I was laid off from my internship because of business.
I was on unemployment for almost a year and a half, until I realized that if I couldn't find a job, I needed to create one! I started my own blog, that was basically my own personal OnlyFans before that was even a thing.
My experience from learning to make my own website made me realize I was good enough to take it till I make it. I started advertising web design, and did that for a couple of years until I started my own secondhand retail shop.
Eventually got back into manufacturing, the field where my original internship was.
I now make $30+/hr
1
u/Swiggy1957 1d ago
Sales will likely be the last thing that AI would take over. Why? Be cause, while it's great at telling the features of a product or service, it will take a long time to determine what benefits to push towards a customer.
For those unaware, sales consist of 2 parts. The product/service features include materials, size, or price. The benefits are how each customer will benefit from a product. If a product has no benefit to the buyer. It goes unsold.
1
u/Luke_Cocksucker 1d ago
Yeah, I think you’re giving the average person way too much credit. “Default” seems wrong. Maybe 1 in 100 people will do this. So many people just work and consume. They have no personal goals. Creating a business takes a lot of work and dedication and discipline. I don’t think so.
1
1
u/nicoy3k 23h ago
1. Virtually no jobs have been replaced by AI on a net negative basis. Most AI impact is task-level augmentation, not full role automation.
2. AI would need multiple exponential leaps to replace anything beyond junior copywriting. Current models aren’t built to scale exponentially and are already running into hardware and data limits.
3. Even if AI can do 80% of structured work, humans are still needed—to edit, handle edge cases, manage up/down, troubleshoot, and apply judgment.
4. AI is most likely to replace low-level, repetitive task roles. But that frees humans to focus on high-impact, value-adding work. It makes companies more efficient by shifting energy from execution to improvement.
5. AI enables smaller companies to scale and compete. That creates more human job opportunities in the long run. The net result is a small reduction in repetitive task roles (less than 1% job loss), but higher quality of life and more diverse career paths overall.
- written with the assistance of ChatGPt
1
u/dustofdeath 23h ago
Companies mean nothing without buyers. There is finite demand for everything, and 95% is covered by a few large companies.
1
1
u/bullcitytarheel 21h ago
The logistics of “every person create a successful individual business or starve” are nonexistent. I can’t even fathom how you imagine it could be made functional
1
u/Vaestmannaeyjar 15h ago
10 years from now I'll be 2 years away from retirement and entitled to 2 years of unemployment benefits if things go south. (I'm french) I'm happy I wasn't born later, because the future certainly looks dystiopian.
1
u/cfehunter 12h ago
Founding companies to do... What exactly? If entertainment, food, resource extraction, goods production and literally everything else is automated by AI what are you selling and who has money to buy it?
1
u/Davydicus1 9h ago
I’m banking on the tariff induced recession leading to another round of PPP handouts first. Davydicus’s Totally Legit Personal Student Loan Forgiveness Shell Company LLC could really use the economic stimulus.
1
u/Pixel_Knight 4h ago
The more likely outcome is everyone will be homeless. Society collapses when people can’t earn a living. Either they implement UBI, or we all fucking die.
•
u/ApocolypseDelivery 1h ago
It's called technological unemployment. The capitalist are going to intentionally stagnate or not implement the technology in order to keep things afloat. We've had driverless car tech for two decades now and they haven't implemented it because commercial drivers are in the 7 figures in terms of job numbers. They're not going to collapse the economy. They have been talking about this at Davos for the last decade
They don't want political instability. Concessions have always been made by the capitalist class in order to keep political stability.
1
u/IronBullRacerX 1d ago
That’s exactly what the hope is, and the successful people will likely do that. There is going to be a large gap to fill in the trades where technology can’t overtake so easily, so we’re a ways off, and physical technical workers will still have a long life. Software technical works are getting phased out much faster.
But in general, more businesses is a good thing, more GDP etc.
1
u/Infamous_Friend6360 1d ago
AI will help humans with jobs most of the time but I dont think all jobs will be lost.
6
u/RobertSF 1d ago
AI will help humans with jobs most of the time but I dont think all jobs will be lost.
I always hear this in a "don't worry" tone of voice. "Don't worry... not all jobs will be lost!"
But how is that a consolation? If 50% of the jobs are lost, that means 50% unemployment!
4
3
u/YsoL8 1d ago
More than anything else it makes me think they haven't looked beyond the next step and the immediate future. Current mainstream AI is genuinely hopeless in most contexts as anything but an assistant, but its not going to stay that way.
Just for one example, its likely now that humanoid robots will go from impossible dream to on sale in less than 20 years. If AI continues on a similar development timeline, in 2045 its going to be doing things currently deemed utterly impossible. Especially as the AI tools themselves are making research easier and faster with every advance.
Its clutching to the hope current normalcy will continue in some form when the reality is the period between now and that being at end is a short lived transition that will be over in a single life time.
1
u/TFenrir 1d ago
10 years from now, our entire world will look completely different. It's hard for us to conceptualize a world where AI runs everything, but this is what I think happens - in the best case scenario.
Any jobs I can think of, would be luxury hobby work, all about human to human connection.
1
u/RazeSpear 1d ago
That'll be in ten years if you skip a few steps and replace the CEOs early. My workplace belongs to Amazon and they wait for the machines to start shedding pieces before replacing them.
1
u/YsoL8 1d ago
The jobs as such will be planning and organisation, and even those will gradually disappear too. Some will always remain, but you are talking about how things are run at almost a policy and objectives level by then, and signing off on plans.
The only other stuff will be things specifically requiring a human, and thats far less things than people understand.
1
u/2old2cube 19h ago
AI won't be running shit in 10 years.
1
u/TFenrir 19h ago
Are you saying this because you're sure this is true, or because you want it to be true? Do you feel like you have a pulse on what's going on in the research world?
1
u/2old2cube 16h ago
I am saying it because I am sure it is true. I remember how self-driving cars were all the rage in 2005 and we were supposed not to drive in 2008.
All this LLM shit will rule nothing, and the generative part of it get old pretty quick. Anyone can tell AI generated pictures right away and nobody is very impressed by them anymore.
It may be used, but it will occupy the same lowest tier, cheapest, no-effort shelf.
0
u/graydonatvail 1d ago
I've noticed that it's much easier to launch businesses these days with all the data and communications tools available. The value chain is easier and easier to sub out, so all you need is the idea and a small amount of capital. I can get freelance design, engineering done, off shore manufacturing, marketing, distribution, fulfillment. Ai can do much of that, plus logistics, ordering, etc even faster than it's done now.
29
u/Jamaican_Dynamite 1d ago
Expect an even more cutthroat market than you're already used to. Everybody's gonna try to corner that part of the market you're calling yourself a solo founder in. Suddenly, there's like 150 "solo founders" like you, in a 100 miles. And there's nowhere near enough business for all of you.
Add in AI, add in scamming and scalping, add in actual lawmakers breathing down your neck. And big time companies trying to muscle you out of business.
Sound familiar yet?