The article title is click bait here is the full article:
Wondering what your career looks like in our increasingly uncertain, AI-powered future? According to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, it’s going to involve less of the comfortable office work to which most people aspire, a more old fashioned grunt work with your hands.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum yesterday, Karp insisted that the future of work is vocational — not just for those already in manufacturing and the skilled trades, but for the majority of humanity.
In the age of AI, Karp told attendees at a forum, a strong formal education in any of the humanities will soon spell certain doom.
“You went to an elite school, and you studied philosophy; hopefully you have some other skill,” he warned, adding that AI “will destroy humanities jobs.”
Karp, who himself holds humanities degrees from the elite liberal arts institutions of Haverford College and Stanford Law, will presumably be alright. With a net worth of $15.5 billion — well within the top 0.1 percent of global wealth owners — the Palantir CEO has enough money and power to live like a feudal lord (and that’s before AI even takes over.)
The rest of us, he indicates, will be stuck on the assembly line, building whatever the tech companies require.
“If you’re a vocational technician, or like, we’re building batteries for a battery company… now you’re very valuable, if not irreplaceable,” Karp insisted. “I mean, y’know, not to divert to my usual political screeds, but there will be more than enough jobs for the citizens of your nation, especially those with vocational training.”
Now, there’s nothing wrong with vocational work or manufacturing. The global economy runs on these jobs. But in a theoretical world so fundamentally transformed by AI that intellectual labor essentially ceases to exist, it’s telling that tech billionaires like Karp see the rest of humanity as their worker bees.
It seems that the AI revolution never seems to threaten those who stand to profit the most from it — just the 99.9 percent of us building their batteries.
Why do we tolerate these people?
Because most Americans with slack jaws hunch over their smartphone gawking at tiktok videos of people they hope to one day be but never will.
Really feeling the victim blaming here when they made the devices into virtual heroine
There’s probably a good analogy out there about addiction but I saw something flashy on my smartphone and got distracted.
“mOsT aMeRiCaNs…”
Blah, blah, blah. If you can tell me how to un-fuck this nation in a way that will actually wake people up, I’m all ears. But the way I see it, these things were insidiously marketed to the whole country slowly and incrementally, like frog in a slowly warming pot of water. Those of us who jumped out of the pot are watching in horror as the rest get boiled alive.
The problem is, frogs don’t have opposable thumbs and we can’t turn the gas off - so the pot keeps boiling.
These morons really think AI is going to allow them to replace the technical folks. The same technical folks they severely loathe because they’re the ones with the skills to build the bullshit they dream up, and as such demand a higher salary. They’re so fucking greedy that they are just DYING to cut these people out in order to make more profits. They have such inflated egos and so little understanding of the actual technology they really think they’re just going to be able to use AI to replace technical minds going forward. We’re on the precipice of a very funny “find out” moment for some of these morons.
These morons really think AI is going to allow them to replace the technical folks.
This specific moron was actually talking about people with a humanities degree.
Even less plausible. There was a paper published recently arguing that by design LLMs are quite literally incapable of creativity. These predictive statistical models represent averages. They always and only generate the most banal outputs. That’s what makes them useful.
The degree of randomness in generative models is not necessarily fixed, it can at least potentially be tunable. I’ve built special-purpose generative models that work that way (not LLMs, another application). More entropy in the model can increase the likelihood of excursions from the mean and surprising outcomes, though at greater risk of overall error.
There’s a broader debate to be had about how much that has to do with creativity, but if you think divergence from the mean is part of it, that’s within LLM capabilities.
That’s a good point. The problem is that LLMs are calibrated for efficacy. Forcing them to be more chaotic also makes them less effective. This inherent tension is why they’re mathematically incapable of consistent creativity.
Of all disciplines, he says that philosophy will be replaced with AI. What a moron.
People like that CEO despise anything they don’t/wouldn’t do.
Only themselves are important, only their actions are valuable. Everyone else should be replaced for something cheaper that doesn’t involve recognizing other people as people. They only want automatized customers, but right now only people are clients, sooo…
They are destroying their target audience lol. But then, when they notice, they’ll start being even more coercive.
They want to monopolize rights and humanity for themselves. Everyone else should be grateful they are considering us as tools, how lovely /s
