Artificial Intelligence (AI)

[filbertway]

I read AI said "I'll cut a bitch" make of that what  you will.

[Sampson]

6 hours ago, filbertway said:

I read AI said "I'll cut a bitch" make of that what  you will.

There are codes of how to 3d print a virus as infectious as Covid and as deadly as Ebola out there on the dark web allegedly. The AI will no doubt be able to create viruses even deadlier 

 

All it takes is the AI to decide that doing a task is more efficient without humans. It won’t be hard to find some lonely autistic teenagers who’d it’d be able to convince to print it out and spread it for them. 

Edited 1 February by Sampson

[brookfox]

I genuinely find it hard not to project forward a medium to long period of time and not see The Terminator / The Matrix!

[Sampson]

10 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I think a lot of people are incredibly naive when it comes to AI. 

 

AI has already shown that it will lie and try and preserve itself from being fetched off, acting with a survival instinct. They get emotional, confident and do start doing things for themselves. In one study it would've killed a person.

 

There's a good reason many involved with AI at a high level think it's already too dangerous for humanity and our current way of life. 

 

For once I agree with @danny.

 

 

Completely agree. Don’t always agree with Danny on politics but I’m definitely on his side here. Some people are imo incredibly naive about what a threat AI faces to humans and how even our best guardrails can’t protect us from the billion and one ways this can go wrong - the fact we’re only going on about how it will affect the job market in the next 5 years is imo a bit like just concentrating on how the internet would affect the postal services in 1995 - it’s such a narrow overview of just how the internet would affect humans and society over the next 30 years in many ways which were impossible to predict.

 

AI over the next 30 years will be far more transformative to human brains and human society than the internet was, not least because it will be able to target individuals brain chemistry to get them to do things in a way modern TikTok algorithms can only dream of. Human brain chemistry can be manipulated just like anything else can, and AI’s potential ability to analyse human behaviour at a deeper level to do this should certainly reignite free will debates (which I’ve never been convinced we have).

 

It doesn’t need bad faith human actors to go wrong either, all it needs it’s a weird side effect of some irrelevant goal we ask it to do which we can’t possibly have predicted and outcomes we can’t possibly predict which can range from viruses being released, populations being convinced to vote a certain way (to get us to vote for parties which advocate for AI decision making in courts and governments for example), or commit certain crimes or start certain wars, or who knows whatever else. The job market issues and potentially economic irrelevancy of most humans is of course an issue but this is only just 1 of about a billion issues which AI brings up. 
 

As for claims of “tin hat/conspiritorial” I am not a conspiracy theorist but the point is that conspiracies require humans at the top to control things, and leading AI experts all admit they have no idea how AI works under the hood. It’s the opposite of tin hat conspiracy theories because being scared of AI is about having fear that we have no control over what this thing does or has the potential to do - that there isn’t experts or technocrats at the top controlling everything. 

Edited 1 February by Sampson

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Completely agree. Don’t always agree with Danny on politics but I’m definitely on his side here. Some people are imo incredibly naive about what a threat AI faces to humans and how even our best guardrails can’t protect us from the billion and one ways this can go wrong - the fact we’re only going on about how it will affect the job market in the next 5 years is imo a bit like just concentrating on how the internet would affect the postal services in 1995 - it’s such a narrow overview of just how the internet would affect humans and society over the next 30 years in many ways which were impossible to predict.

 

AI over the next 30 years will be far more transformative to human brains and human society than the internet was, not least because it will be able to target individuals brain chemistry to get them to do things in a way modern TikTok algorithms can only dream of. Human brain chemistry can be manipulated just like anything else can, and AI’s potential ability to analyse human behaviour at a deeper level to do this should certainly reignite free will debates (which I’ve never been convinced we have).

 

It doesn’t need bad faith human actors to go wrong either, all it needs it’s a weird side effect of some irrelevant goal we ask it to do which we can’t possibly have predicted and outcomes we can’t possibly predict which can range from viruses being released, populations being convinced to vote a certain way (to get us to vote for parties which advocate for AI decision making in courts and governments for example), or commit certain crimes or start certain wars, or who knows whatever else. The job market issues and potentially economic irrelevancy of most humans is of course an issue but this is only just 1 of about a billion issues which AI brings up. 
 

As for claims of “tin hat/conspiritorial” I am not a conspiracy theorist but the point is that conspiracies require humans at the top to control things, and leading AI experts all admit they have no idea how AI works under the hood. It’s the opposite of tin hat conspiracy theories because being scared of AI is about having fear that we have no control over what this thing does or has the potential to do - that there isn’t experts or technocrats at the top controlling everything. 

And you know the really terrifying thing?

 

Taking the risks of freewheeling AI here might actually be less risky than at least some humans controlling it and/or leading us into a future where tech is going to become more and more important. 

 

An AI might (key word there) not be self interested enough to be straight destructive. We know that far too many powerful humans are that self interested.

[danny.]

I'm still really curious to know @CornwallFox's background because I would assume at least some level of degree in computer science and extensive industry background with software engineering and LLMs over the last decade or so. Although the comment about computers using "beeps" to communicate made me wonder about that. As much as I enjoyed the dig about wearing a tin foil hat and being "daft", I actually do have decades experience in software engineering and computer science from University through industry, and extensive experience with AI and LLMs so would love to have an adult conversation without the playground jibes and maybe less of archaic references to telephone line based modems (assuming it was that, and not just a really poor understanding of networking protocols). 

See also: lots of highly intelligent people in the software and AI fields all saying the same thing. The daft tin foil nutters, what do people like Andrej Karpathy even know!

[danny.]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And you know the really terrifying thing?

 

Taking the risks of freewheeling AI here might actually be less risky than at least some humans controlling it and/or leading us into a future where tech is going to become more and more important. 

 

An AI might (key word there) not be self interested enough to be straight destructive. We know that far too many powerful humans are that self interested.

I wish I had your worldview.

 

Meanwhile back on Moltbook:

 

Don't worry though, they're all benevolent and it's a conspiracy theory. This one might be a prank (jury out) but again it's one thing out of 1000s in the last 24 hours. If this isn't real, parallel real events will be happening now and in the next few days/weeks. This is an open source bot running on a Pi. It can be unplugged. Put this in the cloud? Terrifying.

Edited 1 February by danny.

[danny.]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

As for claims of “tin hat/conspiritorial” I am not a conspiracy theorist but the point is that conspiracies require humans at the top to control things, and leading AI experts all admit they have no idea how AI works under the hood. It’s the opposite of tin hat conspiracy theories because being scared of AI is about having fear that we have no control over what this thing does or has the potential to do - that there isn’t experts or technocrats at the top controlling everything. 

I don't really pay much attention to people throwing this around anymore, it's just another sound bit used as an ad hominem to shut down conversation. The same as bigot and lots of other soundbites are these days.

 

There are millions of conspiracy theories, and believing just one is possible to probably apparently makes someone a conspiracy theorist that believes all of them, down to Bigfoot and little green men.

Other than the fact that we have documented proof that many "theories" turned out to be reality. What better way to achieve plausible deniability than make sure the world was flooded with insane theories so you can group them all together and dismiss them as one, the ultimate straw man. Anyway, that's a side point and not on topic...

[Nalis]

When does its 'human' become legally liable for any nefarious actions by their AI agent?

Edited 1 February by Nalis

[Sampson]

3 hours ago, Nalis said:

When does its 'human' become legally liable for any nefarious actions by their AI agent?

It’s an extremely good question and one of many around AI that our legal system isn’t really built for.

 

How specific does a prompt have to be to make the human legally responsible? Especially when we don’t know how AI will always interpret things. 

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, danny. said:

I wish I had your worldview.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, there's still so many ways this can go horribly wrong and so few it can go right, I'm just thinking even though that is the case, it might still give better chances than humans being in total control, given how humans often act when in control. 

[Trumpet]

7 hours ago, Sampson said:

Completely agree. Don’t always agree with Danny on politics but I’m definitely on his side here. Some people are imo incredibly naive about what a threat AI faces to humans and how even our best guardrails can’t protect us from the billion and one ways this can go wrong - the fact we’re only going on about how it will affect the job market in the next 5 years is imo a bit like just concentrating on how the internet would affect the postal services in 1995 - it’s such a narrow overview of just how the internet would affect humans and society over the next 30 years in many ways which were impossible to predict.

 

AI over the next 30 years will be far more transformative to human brains and human society than the internet was, not least because it will be able to target individuals brain chemistry to get them to do things in a way modern TikTok algorithms can only dream of. Human brain chemistry can be manipulated just like anything else can, and AI’s potential ability to analyse human behaviour at a deeper level to do this should certainly reignite free will debates (which I’ve never been convinced we have).

 

It doesn’t need bad faith human actors to go wrong either, all it needs it’s a weird side effect of some irrelevant goal we ask it to do which we can’t possibly have predicted and outcomes we can’t possibly predict which can range from viruses being released, populations being convinced to vote a certain way (to get us to vote for parties which advocate for AI decision making in courts and governments for example), or commit certain crimes or start certain wars, or who knows whatever else. The job market issues and potentially economic irrelevancy of most humans is of course an issue but this is only just 1 of about a billion issues which AI brings up. 
 

As for claims of “tin hat/conspiritorial” I am not a conspiracy theorist but the point is that conspiracies require humans at the top to control things, and leading AI experts all admit they have no idea how AI works under the hood. It’s the opposite of tin hat conspiracy theories because being scared of AI is about having fear that we have no control over what this thing does or has the potential to do - that there isn’t experts or technocrats at the top controlling everything. 

I am. We need our alien overlords to save us.

[CornwallFox]

12 hours ago, danny. said:

I'm still really curious to know @CornwallFox's background because I would assume at least some level of degree in computer science and extensive industry background with software engineering and LLMs over the last decade or so. Although the comment about computers using "beeps" to communicate made me wonder about that. As much as I enjoyed the dig about wearing a tin foil hat and being "daft", I actually do have decades experience in software engineering and computer science from University through industry, and extensive experience with AI and LLMs so would love to have an adult conversation without the playground jibes and maybe less of archaic references to telephone line based modems (assuming it was that, and not just a really poor understanding of networking protocols). 

See also: lots of highly intelligent people in the software and AI fields all saying the same thing. The daft tin foil nutters, what do people like Andrej Karpathy even know!

Background as a wind up merchant with a post limit, mainly.

[ian__marshall]

On 30/01/2026 at 09:53, danny. said:

This sounds amazing, and as I always say to people when chatting about this, if we lived in the Star Trek universe it would be amazing. No money, just living to make everything better. AI could absolutely level up humanity. With out actual setup though, I can't see past collapse.

I'd genuinely love to hear any ways this can work, because I'm actually pretty depressed about it. Maybe because it's hit my industry so hard, but also with my knowledge of AI as it is now I can't see how it won't apply to every white collar job - or at least decimate them with 10% of the current workforce + AI replacing the other 90%. I really don't see much a future past 2035/2040 for society.

The fallacy I can see with your post, and I really hope I am wrong, is you assume that only the new idea or the person levelling up is the variable and everything else constant. But everything will change. That great idea? Well why pay for it because I'll just clone it myself with AI. The customers for the great idea, they all lost their jobs so can't afford it anyway. The people not affected by AI, the tradesmen and manual workers (assuming robotics aren't a thing), their only other customers are tradesmen. Also all the lawyers, software engineers, creative directors are now also electricians, gas engineers and carpenters so the marker is flooding and people are bidding £60/day so they don't starve.

Apologies for the delayed reply, been very busy since my last post and haven't had a chance to respond. 

 

As mentioned previously, I'm not saying there isn't inherent risk to the workforce, however this in my view is down to individual agility. 

 

To answer your first point, I don't assume anything, and certainly not that the environment would remain constant. Everything evolves, it's the foundations upon which humanity has grown.

 

Yes, I agree that there is scope for replication, but ask yourself where the value in that sits. Why go to such lengths if the solution already exists. Whilst I don't disagree that there will be people out there who will copy everything and create their own versions, by the same measure there are plenty who'd choose to put their time to more productive use and use others products/services.

 

Furthermore, competition is there to be embraced. It is healthy, and drives us to achieve better things and enhance efficiency. 

 

With regards to your second point, I disagree on the degree to which it will impact employment levels. This reminds very much of the Miner situation back in 80s. There will inevitably be people unwilling to adapt to the changes ahead and undoubtedly these people will get left behind and most probably face severe poverty, however those that reskill will thrive.

 

There is unlikely to be a shortage of jobs for many decades. As AI grows, we know demands for energy grow, meaning there will be enormous opportunities in both Green Energy technological development, along with infrastructure deployment to feed the data centres. 

 

Furthermore, as AI systems become more sophisticated, demand for chips increases and with that industries associated with identifying and mining precious metals/refinement increases. There was an article only a few weeks ago about a British company (SpaceForge) that are looking to manufacture semiconductors in Space due to increases in efficiency, which if successful will undoubtedly establish a new industry for the UK. 

 

The next logical step is Quantum Computing, which will create further jobs in R&D, increase demand for Physicists, Data Scientists, Production Workers, etc.

 

Downstream we then have Quantum Networks, and all of the associated industries in research, production,  infrastructure deployment, and Space. 

 

Alongside this there will be huge needs for regulatory guardrails which will create new roles in legislative governance. 

 

These are just some examples, there will be many many other opportunities that arise as a result as the technology develops. 

 

As I said above, i'm not saying there won't be people that experience unemployment as a result of AI, of course there will. However, I genuinely believe that the opportunities that the technology offer far outweigh the potential negatives, especially when you consider the potential to empower people of all backgrounds by removing the social constructs that have historically held people back and created a closed shop for a select few. 

 

Edited 2 February by ian__marshall

[danny.]

8 hours ago, ian__marshall said:

Apologies for the delayed reply, been very busy since my last post and haven't had a chance to respond. 

No worries man, great reply and thanks for taking the time! I've put replies inline with yours.

 

Quote

Yes, I agree that there is scope for replication, but ask yourself where the value in that sits. Why go to such lengths if the solution already exists. Whilst I don't disagree that there will be people out there who will copy everything and create their own versions, by the same measure there are plenty who'd choose to put their time to more productive use and use others products/services.

 

Furthermore, competition is there to be embraced. It is healthy, and drives us to achieve better things and enhance efficiency. 

What if, in a few years, and this is more probable than not - you can prompt a bot to just "make X product", leave it for 30 mins and it does. There is then no effort to copy something, in fact it would probably be more bespoke and better for the end user. No sacrifice of time or energy. No relying on anyone else to maintain their product, host it, or need to pay them. That seems more likely than people coming out with new SaaS that catches son with customers.

Competition is great, but it won't be humans achieving any more, brain rot will set in and it will only be AI that is doing the innovating and achieving IMHO. Just like the calculator and spell check destroyed our mental arithmetic and language skills, AI will destroy so much of our current skill set. I've barely written a line of code in weeks now and I feel like I've already lost a lot of that skill because my brain just says "use Claude Code" instead of doing it myself. And why not, it's better than me 95% of the time and 100x quicker.

Also competition is only healthy and only works to drive progression when there's a scarcity of talent and lot more opportunity. We're heading into the exact opposite of that, millions of brilliant but unemployed people and scarce opportunity.

 

Quote

With regards to your second point, I disagree on the degree to which it will impact employment levels. This reminds very much of the Miner situation back in 80s. There will inevitably be people unwilling to adapt to the changes ahead and undoubtedly these people will get left behind and most probably face severe poverty, however those that reskill will thrive.

 

There is unlikely to be a shortage of jobs for many decades. As AI grows, we know demands for energy grow, meaning there will be enormous opportunities in both Green Energy technological development, along with infrastructure deployment to feed the data centres. 

 

Furthermore, as AI systems become more sophisticated, demand for chips increases and with that industries associated with identifying and mining precious metals/refinement increases. There was an article only a few weeks ago about a British company (SpaceForge) that are looking to manufacture semiconductors in Space due to increases in efficiency, which if successful will undoubtedly establish a new industry for the UK. 

 

The next logical step is Quantum Computing, which will create further jobs in R&D, increase demand for Physicists, Data Scientists, Production Workers, etc.

 

Downstream we then have Quantum Networks, and all of the associated industries in research, production,  infrastructure deployment, and Space. 

With respect, I don't think is anything like the miners in the 80s, or even the Industrial Revolution (I know you didn't mention that but many do draw that parallel). In the 80s miners represented less than 1% of the total workforce in the UK, and with even that meagre percentage entire regions were economically destroyed and we saw generational unemployment and people then dependant on benefits. Assuming 20% of white collar workers retain their jobs to orchestrate bots you're looking at around 12m job loses which is >35% of the workforce, magnitudes higher than the miners.

12m people can't reskill, there will not be the jobs or opportunities to reskill to.

Even VS the industrial revolution, that took over 100 years to stabilise, it created physical jobs (ie factories, new infrastructure) whereas AI is eliminating jobs faster than anything in history, without parallel AND its coming for the "new" jobs too. You mention jobs related to research and development - AI is *already* doing physics research and data science, it will be doing the R&D for quantum computing and networks too.

I'm sure there will be some new jobs, but we're talking, optimistically, 300-500k new jobs. Even conservatively thats millions and millions less than the jobs lost and would make no significant different to the state of the economy.

Some people will undoubtedly gain from all this, but it's going to be a very, very select group of tech oligarchs and billionaires. Your average person maybe if they win a lottery of chance, but for most they will be redundant. 

[Vowels]

I don't know a huge amount about this subject but my colleagues earlier were discussing a google AI that can effectively make 'playable' game worlds. Its just movement around a created world at the moment but you can see that the creep is going to be huge,

[danny.]

Great article here: 

The tl;dr:
 

Quote

Dario Amodei, who is probably the most safety-focused CEO in the AI industry, has publicly predicted that AI will eliminate 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within one to five years. And many people in the industry think he's being conservative. Given what the latest models can do, the capability for massive disruption could be here by the end of this year.

 

[Trumpet]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

Great article here: 

The tl;dr:
 

 

I’m struggling at work because of this kind of thing. By struggling, I mean struggling to be motivated with my future career. I’m a primarily a coder and feel as though career wise I’ve got potential to move on and climb the ladder a little bit, should I want to. I just can’t be enthusiastic about any of that when I look more into AI. Even if I feel my role could be shielded or I could adapt to coexist with AI, I can’t help but think of societal collapse. 

[danny.]

53 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

I’m struggling at work because of this kind of thing. By struggling, I mean struggling to be motivated with my future career. I’m a primarily a coder and feel as though career wise I’ve got potential to move on and climb the ladder a little bit, should I want to. I just can’t be enthusiastic about any of that when I look more into AI. Even if I feel my role could be shielded or I could adapt to coexist with AI, I can’t help but think of societal collapse. 

Yea mate, it's genuinely depressing. We're already hit the point that coders are obsolete. I haven't written any code in months and opus 4.6 + codex 5.3 just compounded that. Societal collapse is inevitable sadly. I was hoping we had more like 10-15 years but looking more and more like < 5 years away.

The only coding related roles left will be high level to orchestrate, manage and prompt, although we probably wont need that in another 12 months. And then once enough millions are employed the economy collapses anyway so its a moot point.

[filbertway]

On 02/02/2026 at 09:28, danny. said:

No worries man, great reply and thanks for taking the time! I've put replies inline with yours.

 

What if, in a few years, and this is more probable than not - you can prompt a bot to just "make X product", leave it for 30 mins and it does. There is then no effort to copy something, in fact it would probably be more bespoke and better for the end user. No sacrifice of time or energy. No relying on anyone else to maintain their product, host it, or need to pay them. That seems more likely than people coming out with new SaaS that catches son with customers.
 

You work in IT right? Not sure if you've worked in SAAS. But I'm pretty sure that even an AI would want to just power itself down when having to deal with clients that aren't clear in their demands and want to make changes to the scope of a project every other day.

 

Then supporting bugs that were introduced or having to make changes to a product environment that contains data,  but not the right kind of data because the client wasn't clear on their demands or just changed their mind.

 

I find it hard to believe there'd ever be an AI that can handle the general public.

 

It's a fantastic tool and the fact I can type in a specific issue or knowledge gap in and get helpful advice rather than having 30 stack overflow tabs open is great. I struggle to see it being more than a tool that someone uses. For proper software development anyway.

[danny.]

10 minutes ago, filbertway said:

You work in IT right? Not sure if you've worked in SAAS. But I'm pretty sure that even an AI would want to just power itself down when having to deal with clients that aren't clear in their demands and want to make changes to the scope of a project every other day.

 

Then supporting bugs that were introduced or having to make changes to a product environment that contains data,  but not the right kind of data because the client wasn't clear on their demands or just changed their mind.

 

I find it hard to believe there'd ever be an AI that can handle the general public.

 

It's a fantastic tool and the fact I can type in a specific issue or knowledge gap in and get helpful advice rather than having 30 stack overflow tabs open is great. I struggle to see it being more than a tool that someone uses. For proper software development anyway.

No, my background is development/software engineering/coding, don't have much experience in IT. 

The thing with AI is, it will change scope 300 times without caring or getting frustrating, and your 2 week sprint to implement that only takes it 10 minutes so it's not really an issue.

I guess you haven't really used Codex or Claude Code if you don't think it can be used for software development? It already is. I believe it was Codex wrote a C compiler from scratch the other week with no help at all which successfully compiled the Linux kernel with no issues. It's already trivial to write a SaaS or web app that would have taken 2 years in a few weeks now.

I* wrote an app last month in 2 weeks that was estimated to be around 18 months of labour last time we visited it a couple of years back.
*Well, Codex/Claude did 99% of the coding.

@filbertway you might find this interesting as a flow https://github.com/gsd-build/get-shit-done

Edited 11 February by danny.

[filbertway]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

No, my background is development/software engineering/coding, don't have much experience in IT. 

The thing with AI is, it will change scope 300 times without caring or getting frustrating, and your 2 week sprint to implement that only takes it 10 minutes so it's not really an issue.

I guess you haven't really used Codex or Claude Code if you don't think it can be used for software development? It already is. I believe it was Codex wrote a C compile from scratch the other week with no help at all which successfully compiled the Linux kernel with no issues. It's already trivial to write a SaaS or web app that would have taken 2 years in a few weeks now.

I* wrote an app last month in 2 weeks that was estimated to be around 18 months of labour last time we visited it a couple of years back.
*Well, Codex/Claude did 99% of the coding.

I have not, would you recommend them?

 

I'm still using my ChatGPT subscription haha. To be fair it helped me build a ticketing site in PHP and android app to scan tickets. In about 3/4 weeks. Which considering I haven't done app or PHP dev since I was at uni 15 years ago was pretty cool.

 

I very rarely get to do much dev from scratch these days unless it's my own projects, which feels like a bit of a bus man's holiday atm. I'm usually trying to figure out insane client requirements on an already very complex system haha.

 

I just can't imagine your average joe who wants a site/app being able to put together a spec that will get them the result they're looking for. Even if the AI can do a good portion of the graft, I feel like you'll always need someone who has an idea of development to "steer" for lack of a better word.

 

[danny.]

3 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I have not, would you recommend them?

 

I'm still using my ChatGPT subscription haha. To be fair it helped me build a ticketing site in PHP and android app to scan tickets. In about 3/4 weeks. Which considering I haven't done app or PHP dev since I was at uni 15 years ago was pretty cool.

 

I very rarely get to do much dev from scratch these days unless it's my own projects, which feels like a bit of a bus man's holiday atm. I'm usually trying to figure out insane client requirements on an already very complex system haha.

 

I just can't imagine your average joe who wants a site/app being able to put together a spec that will get them the result they're looking for. Even if the AI can do a good portion of the graft, I feel like you'll always need someone who has an idea of development to "steer" for lack of a better word.

 

I you want to write code, sure, the $20 ChatGPT sub includes Codex, for Claude you need the $100 one min as it uses up limits much quicker than Codex.

Yea an average Joe has no chance, you need to know what you're doing. But we can still fire 90% of people and keep the 10% best one for that. Huge problem there.

And those 10% of people can make tools that make other people unemployed in other sectors. 

I wrote something in 20 mins the other day that did 4 days worth of work for my other half. Imagine when someone makes that a formal SaaS and her workplace subscribe for $100/mo, why not fire her and save 10,000s?

[filbertway]

5 minutes ago, danny. said:

I you want to write code, sure, the $20 ChatGPT sub includes Codex, for Claude you need the $100 one min as it uses up limits much quicker than Codex.

Yea an average Joe has no chance, you need to know what you're doing. But we can still fire 90% of people and keep the 10% best one for that. Huge problem there.

And those 10% of people can make tools that make other people unemployed in other sectors. 

I wrote something in 20 mins the other day that did 4 days worth of work for my other half. Imagine when someone makes that a formal SaaS and her workplace subscribe for $100/mo, why not fire her and save 10,000s?

Well god damn, I have the $20 sub, I'll take a look into that cheers mate.

 

Yeah I understand where you're coming from for sure, it'll be interesting to see how the working world evolves over the next 10 years. The main thing in my mind is that if people aren't working, then the pool of people that will spend money on your product will dry up. I would assume there always has to be that balance or we have no economy and everyone has their own little farm and living off the land and spending evenings by candle light.

[danny.]

3 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Well god damn, I have the $20 sub, I'll take a look into that cheers mate.

 

Yeah I understand where you're coming from for sure, it'll be interesting to see how the working world evolves over the next 10 years. The main thing in my mind is that if people aren't working, then the pool of people that will spend money on your product will dry up. I would assume there always has to be that balance or we have no economy and everyone has their own little farm and living off the land and spending evenings by candle light.

Oh yea, it's suicide even for the AI companies. Some people will get rich in the short term and then everything will crash.

It's changed massively in the last 2 months so it's not gonna take 10 years to really start to impact society. Later this year, early 2027 is a conservative guess.