Hacker News Reader

Comment by sevenzero | Hacker News Reader

Given the primary goal and promise of all these AI vendors is to replace workers I think its hilarious that "you still need workers" is an argument. Wouldn't we have an abundance of workers soonish as all the replaced people could be retrained? Or is the truth that these models can't actually replace intellectual work?

View on HN

If every semi-plausible promise of the AI vendors could be believed, every job which converts conversations into binaries could be replaced.

That's a large chunk of the software development industry, but practically nothing else.

So they promise robots, but have remarkable difficulty with even the most limited domain autonomous robots: Amazon claims to have deployed over a million robots, but is still continuously hiring in their warehouses with requirements like these:

Be 18 years or older

Understand and follow instructions in the required language

Lift up to 49 pounds

Push utility carts up to 60 pounds

Stand, walk, push, pull, squat, bend, and reach during shifts

Use carts, dollies, hand trucks, and other gear to move items around

Go up and down stairs (where applicable)

Maybe Amazon shouldn't have built anti-Dalek defenses into their warehouses.

Most of those robots were designed and built years before "real" AI was a thing. Big companies move like freight trains. Hard to start, and nearly impossible to stop once they get going.

Give it 5 years and see how strong those anti-Dalek defenses are.

> Maybe Amazon shouldn't have built anti-Dalek defenses into their warehouses.

https://www.gatech.edu/news/2026/04/01/why-iran-targeted-ama...

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/09/iran-strikes-on-amaz...

A lack of anti drone defenses turned out to be an actual problem - also interesting use case for your idea of durability to be judged against.

Is it surprising there’s a gap between their vision and reality? Obviously if all that comes to pass they’re hoping the societal implications get figured out to keep the pitchforks at bay.

FWIW no I don’t believe models can replace intellectual work because intelligence is not purpose, and no other entity can tell us what we want. While AI has made building cheap and cutting through the noise even harder, it hasn’t made deciding what to be build any easier, and personally I felt that was already the bottleneck a decade ago (think bullshit jobs, App Store saturation, etc).

Of course that’s just one perspective and I could be totally wrong. But given the situation it makes perfect sense for the big labs to stay focused on building the most valuable shovels in the world and leave the business risk and finding the money for the cash furnaces to others.

> no other entity can tell us what we want

That's the marketing department's job. At some point, there will be an attempt at modeling that, too.

We live in a time and place where the only way you can truly profit is to cut costs. Selling more of the thing that you make or do to more people is harder because of population trends. Everything that can be modeled in AI and done by it, will be.

I'd like to imagine that a factory from 1880s looked a lot different than today, with IoT and robot arms and whatnot. Intellectual work will still be needed, always will. Just think about "computers" of the Space Race era. Their whole job was to sit down with a calculator and calculate the engineering approximations for an orbit that takes a rocket to the moon. Then they installed IBM monoliths and suddenly you needed a few computer scientists only, plus mechanics for overall maintenance of the machine and utilities. And noone ever stopped teaching electronics at all. In fact, that kick-started the Moore's law era.

So we wait 150 years for AI to get good?

Say you're Matthew Boulton in 1775 who partnered with James Watt when he started popularizing his imrpoved steam engine. Could you have predicted that in 2026 we will be discussing about him here, on the Internet, (probably) on a smartphone? Putting down a number is the wrong discussion imho.

If I open a restaurant that doesn't serve anything because "robot chefs and waiters will be here soon" then in a few months I won't have a restaurant or any money.

you forget that these replaced workers need to be working to be able to consume the produced goods. if they are all out of a job no one will buy anything and these companies wont get off the ground.

I am well aware, people need work, therefor my retrain argument. Unless companies also do not want to train workers, which is a huge issue already.

Retrain for what?

Not asking smart questions about the corporate excuses, that's what. Back to the bread line with you!

Well the argument was "we still need workers" so surely there's something to train people for!

The argument was "people still need work to have an income" not "we still need workers"

>Exactly. Factories will be built, but you will still need workers, project engineers, and actual architects. Automation is still not there yet, despite the elaborate harnesses of frontier models.

This is what I replied to?

We got interstates the day after we invented the ICE automobile, right?

Yall really dont see the issue about replacing workers step by step? We'll reach the point of a "saturated" job market which will cause people to fall into welfare programs. Those are saturated soon as well, so what are people going to do, if they have no food and no help? Doesn't take a genius to see the dystopic near future.

Thinking our governments will solve the issues the AI vendors created ain't going to work.

The only option is to invest in robots with machine guns, to provide security services to the ultrarich.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com