693
Senate report says AI will take 97M US jobs in the next 10 years, but those numbers come from ChatGPT
(www.theregister.com)
thats UE4 Manny lol
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
693 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
77084 readers
2366 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
the onion? looks like ai already took adviser to congress jobs
Why even post this here? This is politics BS that‘s used as a diversion from the Epstein files and the government shut down which again only happened so they don‘t vote on the Epstein files.
The epstien files is a distraction from dismantling our constitutional law. What laws are you going to try the pedos under? Which courts do you plan on using? You see where I’m going with this? We all know who’s on the list who’s gonna hold them accountable? No one, thus it’s a stupid distraction.
there is no constitution and never was, they said all men created equal while watching slaves pick their food
There was no civil rights movement and never was. Woman’s suffrage and workers rights never happened either. The collective spirit of this people is white Christian and always has been. You sound like a good maga boi
I don't think the purported numbers themselves are that important, the key bit is that AI is an advancing technology over this century. If we don't rework our society to account for an oncoming future, people will get run over.
If there is an overhaul of my nation's Constitution, I would like economics to be addressed. One such thing would be a mechanical ruleset that adjusts the amount of wealth and assets a company can hold, according to employee headcount. If they downsize the amount of working humans, their limit goes down. They can opt to join a lotto program, that grants UBI to people whose occupation is displaced by AI, and each income that is lotto'ed by the company adds to their Capital Asset Limit.
One such thing would be a mechanical ruleset that adjusts the amount of wealth and assets a company can hold, according to employee headcount.
Expert here. That's a bad idea. Example: a small law firm, 10 employees including owners/partners/I don't care how they're organized. They have 3 bank accounts: their payroll account, their operating fund (where all their nonpayroll expenditures are made) and their client liability account. None of the money in that account is actually theirs, they just hold it while waiting for clients to cash their settlement checks.
Proportionally, at least at the firm I've consulted with, their client liability account is several orders of magnitude larger than either of the other accounts. Technically the money isn't theirs, they are just custodians, and the interest from that account is their bar association dues.
My point is, certain asset caps may look appropriate for one industry and simultaneously be absolutely disruptive to others.
As a more general principle, don't build nitpicky implementation detail into a strategy document. That's how you get brainfarts like the 3/5 compromise.
What is it you're an expert of, here? Game theory? Or do you mean you're a lawyer?
If you're a lawyer, you are not an expert on formulating a society. We've let lawyers run things for a long time and look at where it's gotten us.
The system needs to promote positive, human centric outcomes. Maybe having clients with that much wealth isn't fundamentally a positive outcome? Perhaps that idea needs to be reworked as a part of the oncoming changes?
In other words, anyone dealing with a certain threshold of wealth needs to hire human beings in order to raise their cap. I like this idea a lot actually. The bigger the clients, the more they have to pay if they want legal representation. For billionaires, legal representation would cost an absolute fortune and provide income to thousands of people.
Honestly I haven't thought of this pattern but the more I think about it, the better it seems.
Maybe having clients with that much wealth isn’t fundamentally a positive outcome?
let's remove the ability of people to sue for damages when they're injured, that's ALSO a positive societal goal.
where do you think that money came from?
Preferably, yes. Ideally, we are all insured by a single payer system and in the case of an accident, people are compensated via that insurance.
No legal bank account needed.
Next point?
oh, you want to argue. accidents are a very small subset of legal injuries
I am not looking to argue. I just don't think there is a future for the law profession in a post-scarcity society. Disagreements will occur and negotiations will exist, but there are better ways to resolve them.
Ideally, lawyers, marketers, bankers, and politicians will no longer be needed. They can all be automated.
i mean, ideally everything can be automated. the reason we have lawyers is because there is (usually intentional) wiggle room in the law, and people sometimes need more than "society runs better if we honor our word" to act with integrity, follow the law, or put their shoppings cart back. some people need the stick of legal repercussions all of the time. automating politicians (unless you are going for a direct democracy, which no one has the time for) concentrates power in the hands of the people maintaining the automation. i agree with you on the other two, but i'm sure i could find justifications for human intervention in their processes if i tried. not to mention there's a certain amount of ingenuity and talent that AI can't duplicate. nearly everything i've seen that's AI produced lacks soul.
also, i'm not a lawyer, i am just occasionally an expert witness or forensic analyst for some law firms and have some lawyers in the family. I specialize in one federal and two state titles, but again, i provide analysis i don't practice law. my career has spanned four or five marginally related disciplines so not quite sure what to call me
AI can't run anything, but it can act as an advisor and analyst. It will need to be completely open sourced and transparent. It will also need to be local. Direct democracy doesn't work, a liquid democracy can. People have proven they do have the time with their social media use. The more active people can participate more directly, the less active can delegate their voice. Any and all votes can be revoked. All votes are of public interest and are open. If a delegated issue is in disagreement with someone's opinion they can granularly change their vote.
Executive roles don't exist via election, they are determined by delegated thresholds. Anyone occupying a role like that can be removed just as easily. Adjacent advisory or expert positions are filled the same way. Roles are divided into expertise and operate independently of other branches. A citizen can granularly choose their ideal people, and it contributes to them actually being the people. More preferred is they delegate to someone more knowledgeable than them that they actually know, and a delegation chain naturally selects the most qualified specialists.
With some imagination you can see how this could replace everything, because it is compatible with every system of governance that currently exists. The objective isn't to dictate, it is to give people a voice universally. If people want to delegate their way into a dictatorship, they can. They can also remove the dictator just as simply, and the world can transparently see what the people want & act accordingly.
With the cryptography primitives commonly available now, this is possible at this very moment. It is possible in an incorruptible way, that could likely persist for thousands of years. The only piece that relies on human trust is identity verification, but the branching nature of a liquid democracy allows for factions to exist, so the natural uncertainty contained within identity is irrelevant. Output is a better measure than identity. If a faction's output does not match their claimed identity people can isolate the collective and diminish their weight on an individual basis (I don't trust A's opinion on B, so I will weigh it less on C).
Anyway, just some food for thought.
only problem inherent in the current generation of AI is that AI being wrong is inherent to the mathematical model, but that's just a math problem don't worry they'll sort it out with another few billion dollars a year
load more comments
(4 replies)
"If there is a massive overhaul, I would like to use this once in a century event to enact minimal changes that will help to keep the capitalist system in place."
The Senate will decide its fate.
Well my AI says it will take 96 or 98 million jobs, depending on what you want it say and only for $5,000.
I.e., made up on the spot.