An important element of economics that this ignores: if the maximal substitution of human labor with generative machine learning is achieved… who is going to fucking buy or invest in anything? Wages enable consumption. Kill wages == kill consumption == kill your profit margin. Everything ultimately rolls back to the consumer in market economics.
this post was submitted on 10 May 2026
50 points (94.6% liked)
Fuck AI
7069 readers
2127 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I get this sinking feeling that they are planning for the worst possible version of a post money world
Underclasses as feedstock for the AI farmers compost needs?
New World Order. I'm not exactly sure, but I think they're planning to destroy billions of people, keep loyal consumers on basic collateral for a while, and when the system stabilizes without consumers, the remaining consumers will be destroyed too, and eventually a few thousand or hundreds of people in the world will have absolute power until AI takes it away and destroys every single one of them.
This is how it is likely to end. If you don't want to be killed, I recommend thinking about it.
I don't think it ignores it, rather the argument is precisely that that maximal substition won't and can't happen.
The difference is a tractor did the same job better than a horse.
AI does not do jack fucking shit better than a human.
Wrong! LLMs produce useless garbage MUCH faster and for FAR higher costs than a human ever could, all while making middle management insanely horny.
Me, looking at all the horse furries: "I KNEW IT"
^[citation^ ^needed]^
Neigh
"Why AI will not replace labour"
Looks inside
Baseless assertion that some tasks always require humans input
Every fucking time.
Baseless assertion that some tasks always require humans input
It's really not that; it's about how spending and employment patterns have changed historically in response to increased automation.
Historical employment patterns which depend on labour being a smaller but irreplaceable slice of a larger pie. 0% of an economy a billion times the current size is still 0$