Ironically, jobs that look to see what was created by AI vs. not. Art created by AI will be worthless, while ones created by humans will remain valuable. You’ll see ‘experts’ who are trained to look for human work vs. AI work for in-demand fields.

[removed]

I'm pretty sure the top job we'll all be clambering for will be Human Battery.

Someone has to maintain the machines, and someone has to write the code. The more AI steps into the working force the more jobs like this will manifest from it.

Unless I'm not understanding the question, I'm fairly certain this is a significant talking point regarding AI. I'm sure a simple Google search could find plenty of conversations.

Despite the cringe form my community (coders)… it may actually keep or maintain coding jobs.

It sounds counter intuitive but AI isn’t great at unsupervised ML. I know that plenty of people would disagree… but it’s really true.

Moreover, let’s say an AI designs a more efficient rail system (ChatGPT says it can’t create new things well as is the case with most AI hence the bad at Unsupervised ML) there would still be people needed to build the infrastructure of the rail system.

The jobs that AI will directly create will most likely be in the tech sector or by people specifically educated to use it in the best way. (supervise/build/maintain repositories)

I think that it will create many jobs that may not have been there previously. I don’t know many companies that have teams of statisticians manually piling over mountains of data looking for trends that might influence their decision making. Most companies still don’t make many data driven decisions outside of financials analysis. I think we are going to see a rise in the sheer amount of data being generated and stored (so DBAs will be in higher demand), the structures will need to become more normalized (architects and developers will be very busy), the AIs will need to be trained (data scientists will be a HOT commodity), and there is probably going to be an evolving skill set of someone that can kinda bridge many of these areas and also somehow relate the research back to the ultimate benefit of the business.

They will create jobs that will require a neural link to perform.

Once they’ve become capable of programming and maintenance without us, they won’t create. They will consume, much like a human billionaire.

Jobs that requires different skills than the ones they replace. Critical thinking, technical skills, creativity, innovation need to replace routine less skilled labor. The question is, how many people are able to be upskilled?

This is the first time I’ve seen an instance where, the initial post has been [removed], but there is a list of comments. Makes for interesting reading, since I don’t know the topic

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

Oh, that's easy.... there's only one answer to this... career advisers and job centre staff.

AI in its form now is just very good pattern recognition..

That’s why your voice on automated responses works without training it , and using computers can recognize faces etc. It has taken this long to get a computer that can do what your brain does in recognizing patterns this is why you can read different peoples handwriting as another simple example.

So it won’t create anything or really take anything away yet imo. Those skills are pretty useless on their own but will help fields where finding patterns in large amounts of data are important. IE medicine, sciences etc..

I keep hearing the term “Promt-Masters” thrown around mostly ironically

I'm thinking that future work will be in levels of AI interaction.

At the lowest level, the AI is doing everything and you're just there to clean up after it. Think AI robots running restaurants; humans are just there to clean, maintain, and restock.

At the highest level, you're a highly knowledgeable industry professional consulting with your AI bot, who is writing various analyses on your behalf, and you're there to make the final decision on spending (because humans don't trust AI to spend blindly).

In theory, they could complete complex coding requests for people who don’t understand coding.

You could have an idea for an app or program and tell a computer to make that program for you.

The problem is that by allowing anyone to do this, the market for people who will be replaced by these programs will cause more people to lose jobs than they will ever be able to fill.

Think about how photography used to be something that you needed a specialized professional with tools and training for in the 1800s and now everyone has a phone in their pocket - no experience needed.

[deleted]

Social workers focused on unemployment benefits will in high demand.

[removed]

Man, I just want a robot to take care of me when I'm old. I gotta say I thought we'd be a bit further along by now. And I'm in GenX so I'm starting to worry. And they wouldn't have to look and work as well as Ex Machina. Though that certainly wouldn't hurt.

AI has already made the painters to unionize, that's for starters

People who fix robots, generally.

Also people who can debug AI programs that run amok.

Initially AI will create a lot of jobs exploiting its new capabilities, but as it improves it will also be capable of taking on those roles. The entire point of an AGI is that it is as capable as a human (and then eventually more competent).

Things worth bearing in mind:

1. Once a machine exceeds human performance in a task, humans never regain the lead.

2. Technology is progressing, not staying still, so machines get better over time whereas humans as a species aren't improving at the same rate

3. Humans don't operate on magic, so eventually everything we do will be replicable.

At some point the work available will be purely about the quality of human to human interaction, which will retain value just as hand-made still has a place in the market for manufactured goods.

Part of it comes down to what AI can do physically.

I suspect that we'll see some more displacement in the knowledge fields well before we see ones requiring physical work. The adoption of legal management systems for searching and updating contracts and other legal filings has taken a big bite out of the demand for lawyers and paralegals already.

Because if the physical jobs were amenable to automation, many more of them would have been already. In many cases, the bottleneck there hasn't been a lack of AI. Current software and computers are well up to the task already in many instances. The cost/effort required to actually manipulate a physical process effectively with automation is the big factor.

There's edge cases where (weak)AI and machine learning can make the difference, and it'll creep into physical work tasks eventually. But it's more a factor of economy of scale for the physical robots, and the entire logistics of reworking a business, factory, a farm, a mine, etc. than it's an issue of "not smart enough."

And it's difficult to predict what exactly AI will make more efficient, eliminating jobs, vs. creating entirely new ventures and industries that require more employment.

Take the internal combustion engine and vehicles. The automobile in every aspect employed orders of magnitude more people than the stable hands, hay farmers, horseshoe blacksmiths, and street sweepers it displaced. Car salesmen, mechanics, oil/gas workers, road construction, automobile factory workers, engineers, designers, the list goes on...

On the other hand, farmers went from about 30% of the US population by employment to roughly 2% today. And of that 2% today, that's "agriculture related," so some are presumably doing things like operating grain elevators, various technical things, or whatever. And aren't directly "farming." All because of the tractor, and other machines like the combine.

Those who claim that AI and automation can and will displace almost everyone eventually aren't completely wrong, but the concerns of how fast it'll happen and how the economy will react are overblown. And there's a fundamental issue that in a world with no employment, the cost-basis for goods starts approaching zero. Hyperdeflation.

The only real economic scarcity could become energy. And there are solutions to that already. At least technical/scientific ones. The barriers are largely political/social in nature. Meltdown proof, disaster-proof fission reactor designs are known. And add to it fast breeder reactors tech, mining ever more Uranium isn't an issue. Aggressive fuel reprocessing solves a great deal of the nuclear waste problem. Neutron activation/deactivation of secondary wastes solves more.

High capacity energy production from nuclear can solve many more problems. Mass desalination of seawater for agriculture and drinking in arid regions. Massive recycling of wastes that's currently too expensive. Even direct conversion of plastics and organic-carbon waste to produce carbon-neutral petrochemicals for the million-odd things we use them for besides fuel are possible.

And that's just fission, if one or more of the dozen-odd fusion methods being pursued pays off, or the trend of ever cheaper and more efficient solar panels keeps going, there's more sources of energy coming too.

First-world living standards seem to be well tied to shrinking non-replacement birthrates and population contraction.

Free or nearly free goods, ever higher technology, and a shrinking population that doesn't even need as much food, goods, energy, or raw materials... we may ultimately be looking at the wrong problems.

And I'm sure some will grumble that they feel it's inevitable. There's going to be a high-tech billionaire class and a world of serfs coming. Although it seems to me that economic oppression just for its own sake is a potential false premise. Even beyond the basic zero-sum game fallacies. Cynical enlightened self-interest alone could conceivably prevent it. A world where everyone lives in comparable comfort and luxury is a world not inclined to do the whole "pitchforks and torches"-thing.

In the meantime, we'll have to wait and see how many "Automobiles" vs. "Tractors" come out of AI and machine learning.

I think education, creative, and social jobs will grow.

Like if AI writes basic code, you might need more educated programmers to find bugs or inefficient things in the code that the AI model made. OpenAI writes credible looking code now but it’s often got subtle mistakes a novice wouldn’t catch. So, programmers might spend more time in college to learn enough to enter the field of editing AI code. Maybe professional degrees become required (like it now for law and medicine) so more expert instructors are needed.

Another scenario where AI creates jobs is creative jobs that currently have a high cost of entry. Like camera filters and video editing software didn’t mean less jobs taking photos and producing videos. It democratized those tasks and allowed for jobs like YouTubers and influencers. Imagine AI tools make video game asset creation and coding relatively trivial and intuitive so games can be made by individuals.

And for services: the cheapest, most efficient way to exercise isn’t group classes but lots of people prefer the communal, human led experience and pay more for it. Therapists. Spa services. Hiking guides. Probably gigolos and male strippers. AI will never replace stud muffins. Any job where old people yell at you and ask for your manager. Only a human can be dehumanized.

What changes need to be made to the bill of rights due to the increasing competence of AI.

Through the Bill of Rights I am guaranteed rights against the powers of government. We still have no Bill of Rights protecting us against the powers of companies. We need a Bill of Rights protecting us against the powers of artificial intelligence.