”So we shouldn’t have invented *x-machine* because *x-worker* lost their job” is the stupidest argument to back AI
Summary
作者反驳了'历史上新发明总会创造新工作'这一为AI辩护的常见论点，认为AI与汽车不同——它不会简单改写工作描述，而是在广告、写作、设计等领域直接取代人力。
Similar Articles
@VraserX: The anti-AI crowd keeps telling us AI produces nothing of value while simultaneously demanding that we stop using it be…
作者调侃反AI群体的自相矛盾：一边说AI毫无价值，一边又声称AI正在取代他们的工作，无法同时成立。
@FinanceYF5: AI won't put humans out of work. a16z partner David George refutes the popular "AI job apocalypse" narrative in Silicon Valley. He argues it is merely a modern incarnation of the century-old "lump-of-labor" fallacy—the idea that the amount of work is fixed is fundamentally flawed.
a16z partner David George refutes the claim that AI will cause mass human unemployment, arguing that it is a fallacy based on the flawed assumption of a fixed amount of work.
@0xCheshire: Jeff Bezos made a highly disruptive assertion. While the world is anxious that AI will cause massive unemployment, he asserts that AI will ultimately bring unprecedented labor shortages. People always pessimistically predict that more powerful machines will eliminate radiologists or software engineers. In his view, this is purely cognitive bias. Technological change...
Jeff Bezos proposes a disruptive view that AI will not cause massive unemployment but instead lead to unprecedented labor shortages and a productivity explosion, thereby lowering the cost of living and reshaping social structures.
“It’s just another tool”
作者针对会议上‘AI只是又一个工具’及‘AI没有判断力’等流行观点提出反驳，认为AI在写作、情绪稳定性和风险识别上已超越大多数人类，质疑行业资深人士对AI取代非AI工作者的低估。
AI for what?? (ppl like working w/ ppl!)
The article criticizes the business model of AI companies that replace middle managers with AI, noting that licensing fees could match employee salaries and that humans inherently need interpersonal interaction, making large-scale replacement unrealistic.