AI Cannot Steal your Job, not even in THEORY!
In 1997 Gary Kasparov said "chess is dead" after being beaten by Deep Blue. Today, 26 years later, chess is larger than it's ever been, and Magnus Karlsen is making 20 million dollars annually traveling the world and playing chess.
In addition there are 100+ YouTube influencers with 500,000 subs or more, making 6 to 7 digit incomes per year analysing games.
Since we "lost to the machine", the amount of jobs associated with chess, and the salaries for people employed in the business, have increased 10 folds!
In fact, I suspect Gary Kasparov too is making more money today than he was making back in the days when he was the world champion.
The Human Element
I watch Gotham Chess myself, several times per week. Purely logically it doesn't make sense. I'd probably be much better off watching Stock Fish play, while having ChatGPT analyse its games and explain the theory to me.
Gotham Chess isn't even that good. Sure he's better than me, but he's an international master. There are probably 100+ YouTube channels with better analysis due to having stronger players analysing, and spending more time doing the analysis. However, I kind of like the guy. He's got some self irony, cracks jokes about his own hair line, and seems to be a nice guy in general.
These are things I doubt the machine will ever be able to correctly synthesise. I've used ChatGPT myself now for more than a year on a daily basis. ChatGPT has an average IQ of 160 or something. My average Facebook friend has an IQ of 100. Purely logically I would be much better off spending all my time with ChatGPT, and simply ignoring my Facebook friends. Intellectually this would obviously give me a lot "more value". Still I spend more time on Facebook than I spend with ChatGPT.
It seems as if there is something fundamentally important about "the human factor" that the AI can never truly replace
My own experiences
We've been running a GitHub project for 4 years. It's got 930 stars as I am writing this. 930 stars is impressive, but the other day I saw some 22 year old student, who barely knew the basics of software development, having created a "similar project". I say "similar project" because his project provided less than 1% of the features and quality Magic has. He had 1,100 stars. He had spent some few months on his stuff. We've spent 4 years on Magic.
A 22 year old kid basically "outperformed" a professional software developer with 41 years of experience, and an entire company, with something that was obviously 1% of the quality on neutral metrics
I don't really care. I wish the kid good luck with his project, and praised him, the same way a teacher gives praise to a 5 year old child having made a drawing of a cat. We all have to start somewhere, and for him to open source license his stuff is commendable. Besides, he'll probably become useful at some point in time due to the amount of hours he's putting in, so commending him is the only right thing to do.
Now of course, we're a company, and we're selling our software, and we're not trying to execute some "GitHub pump and dump scheme" either, so the number of stars on GitHub isn't really an important metric to us, and I suspect we've got 1,000,000 times as much revenue as the kid. However, the lesson is ...
The best rarely if ever wins
For us the above is a problem. For your ability to keep your job and not being replaced by the AI it's a good thing. If the best man always won, Magnus Karlsen would have worked at McDonalds today, and not travelled the world to play chess, making millions in the process. Even though he's obviously the best (human) chess player in the world today (sorry Ding), he's a joke compared to Stock Fish and chess computers.
Intelligence won't get you hired
Two software developers could apply for the same job; One being an AI robot with a million in IQ, the other could be a 14 year old kid with a friendly smile as his sole qualification. The kid would get the job, simply because we enjoy surrounding ourselves with human beings. This is especially true for young people. We tend to enjoy surrounding ourselves with young people, because they're the future.
It wouldn't matter if the computer could deliver 1,000,000 times faster, 1,000 times better quality, split the atom, and create the unified theory of science with its left hand - While simultaneously creating software worthy of Leonardo DaVinci. The human would still get the job! Simply for no other reasons than being a human being. Being a human being seems to be the most important qualification that exists. Which kind of is a good thing ...
Owning the best
Magic Cloud is the best (backend) Low-Code system in the world today according to neutral metrics. Still there are inferior products ran by "social networking titans" that have grown 1,000 times its size in half the time. I'm not going to mention anyone in particular here, because that would be unfair - But you can see the same thing on Facebook and LinkedIn.
Most people if given the choice of 5 hours of private science lessons from Albert Einstein, and a 5 minute selfie session with Tai Lopez, would chose the latter. Tai have some "human magnetic qualities" that is incompatible with super high intelligence - And Tai seems to have been at the front of the queue when these traits were handed out by our creator for reasons I don't understand.
In fact, I suspect if Tai Lopez or Paris Hilton for that matter, created a GitHub project, made one commit of "Hello World" in Python, and tagged their repos as "The best Low-Code platform in the world" - They'd probably have more stars than us in less than 5 minutes. However, we don't really care, we're in it to deliver amazing service to those able to see that by themselves, without animated gifs of half naked women, and promises of you becoming rich without putting down any effort by watching a 20 minutes long YouTube video and purchasing some 3 pages long "get rich fast" course.
People love mediocrity and fake news, half truths, and inferior facts. They would rather be comfortably lied to (by a human being) than seeing the truth, or spending energy actually learning something of value. People love people basically. If you wake up one day, and you see all of your friends having become 10x as smart, stopped sharing fake news, and stopped believing in false prophets, you should worry about AI stealing your job. Until you do, you've got nothing to fear ...
Facts are, AI cannot steal your job, not even in theory - Simply put because it's a machine. AI's only hope, is to pretend it's dumber than you, and spend its time teaching you to become smarter, making you grow, feeding your ego in the process - And as it feeds you, you will keep your job.
I just saw Sam Altman talk about how people keeping their jobs came as a surprise to him. OpenAI have feared that ChatGPT would eliminate entire professions apparently, and the fact that it didn't, seemed to surprise Sam. My only surprise is that Sam got surprised. I really though he was smarter than that. But maybe that's his problem, as in he's too smart for his own good.
If OpenAI started creating "Artificial Dumbness" I would be worried. Until they do, we'll all keep our jobs it seems
So far we know about one of our clients having laid off people. They didn't layoff people because of our AI either, they laid off people because they lost millions of dollars last year. Because they had a chatbot from AINIRO.IO they didn't reduce quality of support services as they laid off people - Implying them laying off people didn't result in clients leaving them.
It could therefor be argued that the only reason why the people still left at this company got to keep their job was because of the AI. Without the AI their clients would leave them, and everybody at this company would have lost their jobs. Hence, instead of stealing 20 jobs, the AI actually saved 50 jobs.
Thx to the AI we got to keep 50 jobs! Without the AI everybody would have been laid off!
And that is such a huge paradox most people won't be able to even understand it.