As I try to have an opinion (no opinions allowed on Twitter, 'artist') of being reassembled rather than being replaced. Multiple interpretations, then a conclusion.
So Heya, journeyman graphic designers, commercial copywriters and software designers. Along with Games, VSX and other artists. Here's me steelmanning your concerns and trying to reassure, yet I can't sell you reassurance; I'm not a coachman of reassurance. I'm a himbo who's trying to give his best answer.
This is all speculative, so we're wading into territory where I'll go.
"Their fate is the subject of this essay, and a lens to think through the implications of AI for work with a bit more nuance than “LLMs are a scam” or “white collar work is doomed.” Perhaps those all-or-nothing predictions will turn out to be right! But honestly I doubt it. Instead I think it will be messy, confusing, exciting, strange, unfair and apparently irrational, just like it was last time."
Wow! WOWAAWAA labour and symbolic capital are in a loop! That's with all the things with the land
Also, one of the last copywriters, on functionalism, that man fell through. Although, I'll see what comes.
I'll link that copyrighter one here. To feel the fear of things ahead.
(We know hand skills will be least affected; James Gurney did a good post on it. So those craft skills.)
ON THE CONTRARY.
Patreon out of IP laws, making money of public domain like The Backrooms Movie did, along with not imagining oneself as a temporally embarrassed mass-media creator. Advertising and other streams of revenue within the internet.
This substacker has prospects
To the substitution/augmentation. The evidence is leading towards more augmentation; we may make it out as those silly venture capitalists predict.
Wooo link we are not horses after all.
"AI will do many tasks. It will reorganize jobs, probably painfully. Some sectors will lose most of their human labor. Spending can chase automation. All of that can happen and still not get to zero. Because at every step, there’s a saved dollar looking for somewhere to land. And the question is always the same one. Where does it go next?
For the horse outcome, you need that saved dollar to find nothing with a human attached to it.
That’s a very specific future. It might happen. But it has to happen everywhere at once, and the evidence we have, the structural change evidence, the revealed preferences, the experimental results, keeps pointing the other way."
Two studies are evidence on reinstatement. Along with a working paper on robots and firms I've read. So do entertain better ones before looking at microbloggers and anger there.
"To the best of our knowledge, ours is the most comprehensive systematic literature review on the technology-labour nexus, and it is the first that carefully distinguishes different technologies and channels of impact. This study offers an empirical basis for the political and scientific debate on the labour market effect of technological change. "
We know thoughother than Disney know what's up not that company.
Also Henry has examined some of the poistions that can't be outsourced
Can we attack with popular denial?
No
I must return to the rant since the small-scale bubble of social media isn't reflective of activism at large since the thing isn't going to be televised and entertained. This is a matter of adaptation, even as these adoption rates rise with the coming tech.
"Why coding agents haven’t led to labor displacement: the decide-execute-deliver sandwich
Many tech leaders, like the Snap CEO above, report the percentage of code written by AI alongside reports of layoffs or predictions of future job losses. This feeds into the simplistic mental model that once AI writes all the code, there is no need for coders. Fortunately, this mental model is wrong. This AI-written-code metric is almost completely disconnected from what matters for labor displacement. Here’s why."
"Approach this like an engineering problem, not an epistemological debate. What would it take? Start there.
Engineering discipline has never been more vital
As Nathen Harvey said in the 2025 DORA report: “AI is an amplifier. It magnifies the strengths of high-performing organizations and the dysfunctions of struggling ones.” AI will not solve for a lack of discipline, tooling gaps, or management that is disconnected from reality. If you want to leverage AI effectively, you need to invest in your engineering discipline and effectiveness."
Here's a materialist/ideology interpretation of AI with structuralism. As I learn the tenets to apply to my method of understanding the world of qualitative differences. Here's an hour of a book I'm getting. B-B-Bonus video
Wooo link we are not horses after all.
"AI will do many tasks. It will reorganize jobs, probably painfully. Some sectors will lose most of their human labor. Spending can chase automation. All of that can happen and still not get to zero. Because at every step, there’s a saved dollar looking for somewhere to land. And the question is always the same one. Where does it go next?
For the horse outcome, you need that saved dollar to find nothing with a human attached to it.
That’s a very specific future. It might happen. But it has to happen everywhere at once, and the evidence we have, the structural change evidence, the revealed preferences, the experimental results, keeps pointing the other way."
We also must put certain ai washing with the Tyranny of the firm. So that's correlation and causation of the matter to bring your conclusions.
Two studies are evidence on reinstatement. Along with a working paper on robots and firms I've read. So do entertain better ones before looking at microbloggers and anger there.
"To the best of our knowledge, ours is the most comprehensive systematic literature review on the technology-labour nexus, and it is the first that carefully distinguishes different technologies and channels of impact. This study offers an empirical basis for the political and scientific debate on the labour market effect of technological change. "
"Automation increases employment. The way it would make you unemployed is if another country used more automation and then all the demand went to them because they're more productive.
@mvb.kirinok.osaka
Empirical evidence matters more than theory, e.g., papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
But the reason is automation increases productivity -> lower prices -> more demand, and jobs are about comparative advantage (what makes you unique) and humans have that vs machines."
We know though
(That's the physicalist's way of testing, from literature to textbook. Learned that from bodybuilding.) With all that, even with labour, the way it all happens with economic theories of value, the way this moves with the media access of value on social media advertising, then it's going to happen differently with the manual labour.
Also Henry has examined some of the poistions that can't be outsourced
"This is not the only possible reading of Drucker’s book in the age of AI, but it seems to me to be highly congruent with his thought. It also has obvious implications for how we think about AI in the workplace. My version of Drucker might say the following. The current Silicon Valley approach to AI is profoundly problematic. It reinforces hierarchy and subordination to the vision of the CEO, rather than enabling individual judgment. It grossly simplifies many of the complex and multifaceted activities of management into “measurement” processes that AI can purportedly replace. It subordinates the moral and developmental aspects of business activity to abstract measurements of efficiency. If someone were actually to write an op-ed that applied Drucker’s ideas to AI, and its associated business model, they would say very different things than Matthew Prince."
For the rest of us though, What are LLMS? Some clarifications
I'll place this one with the com copywriters/graphic designers to look up. First off within creative industries. Hate it or love it, I've been trying to get to the heart of this nondeterministic praxis 2024.
Aleatoric performance art is an interesting interpretation of the mechanics.
So LLMs are non-deterministic?
"I’d like to propose that we think of generative AI as a technique for producing aleatory artworks. Much of the angst around AI, to me, comes from observing the stochastic, indeterminate, unpredictable nature of it—and framing these things as flaws. But in aleatory art, these qualities are useful and productive: They invite the artist to produce works through different processes, which lead to different aesthetic outcomes."
"The term aleatory refers to anything dependent on random or stochastic processe (like rolling a die, or using the result of a random number generator). Thanks to the avant-garde composer Pierre Boulez, the term was often used in the 20th century to describe art that used chance to create, produce, or perform a work."
Aleatoric performance art is an interesting interpretation of the mechanics.
(You can ignore that Emily Bender paper btw)
So LLMs are non-deterministic?
"LLMs are nondeterministic. Even with temperature 0 they may not respond to the same prompt with the same output — and we deliberately keep temperatures well above 0. Even if they were deterministic, unlike software, there is generally no fixed or limited set of inputs; each prompt is different, anything might go into them, and thence through the black-box neural networks of embeddings & attention heads & skip layers. LLMs are stochastic: their outputs follow unpredictable probability distributions rather than reliable algorithms. They are, again, nondeterministic.
There was a little bait-and-switch above, a rhetorical magician’s trick. Yes, the hardware will run your software in the same way every time ... but the software you first give it is always wrong! When you write code, the outputs are not deterministic in any way that is meaningful to the author. Instead the outputs are truly random… because code has bugs, and you don’t know where those bugs are, or what they do. Software is deterministic in principle, sure. But software in practice is actually far more chaotic than LLMs!"
That's one of my theories with labour markets being made anew, deproffesionalize and professionalizing of our cycle.
But what about RSI??
No leave that to Dario
Can we attack with popular denial?
No
I must return to the rant since the small-scale bubble of social media isn't reflective of activism at large since the thing isn't going to be televised and entertained. This is a matter of adaptation, even as these adoption rates rise with the coming tech.
Lump of labour again.
It's like the NFTs are being ignored in favour of the spectacle and celebrity culture.
There's a coming agentic model of the way, and there's accounting for the theory of the firm.
That's the focus of the chokepoints, and that's where this outsourcing will begin and end.
There's a coming agentic model of the way, and there's accounting for the theory of the firm.
That's the focus of the chokepoints, and that's where this outsourcing will begin and end.
The next question is white-collar software programmers; well, there's more of that frumpy paradox by normal AI and Ai-Washing that's commenced. Of those under high AI influence.
"Why coding agents haven’t led to labor displacement: the decide-execute-deliver sandwich
Many tech leaders, like the Snap CEO above, report the percentage of code written by AI alongside reports of layoffs or predictions of future job losses. This feeds into the simplistic mental model that once AI writes all the code, there is no need for coders. Fortunately, this mental model is wrong. This AI-written-code metric is almost completely disconnected from what matters for labor displacement. Here’s why."
With the coming wave of agentic within the market, there is the response.
Engineering discipline has never been more vital
As Nathen Harvey said in the 2025 DORA report: “AI is an amplifier. It magnifies the strengths of high-performing organizations and the dysfunctions of struggling ones.” AI will not solve for a lack of discipline, tooling gaps, or management that is disconnected from reality. If you want to leverage AI effectively, you need to invest in your engineering discipline and effectiveness."
David Graeber did a concept, and Seth Godin refutes this.
"The best plan is resilience. Find a way to create value, more each day. Consider enrolling in the bumpy ride that change brings, because holding on tight to the job we have today is probably going to be insufficient."
Oh and the analysis on the lump-of-labor Yet we now this is by Goldman Sachs. HMM. Well I told ya I brought multiple interpretations as an Althusserian socialist! I need it for a syntopic reading of ALL the realms to come to a conclusion.
Yet I know this isn't bringing in a complete picture as we know the ones down the rung.
This one on agentic markets made me thing on the amount of information input, I merely in case, here's an article on that. Yet I'm against the singularity that much.
"A firm has never existed just to coordinate cheaply. It exists to absorb risk: to carry a brand you can still trust when the internet fills with AI-generated noise, to leave an audit trail, to be the last resort that answers for the liability when things go wrong, to hold enough capital to survive failures of business experimentation."
Even though I'm sceptical of the Courssian singularity
"The best plan is resilience. Find a way to create value, more each day. Consider enrolling in the bumpy ride that change brings, because holding on tight to the job we have today is probably going to be insufficient."
Oh and the analysis on the lump-of-labor Yet we now this is by Goldman Sachs. HMM. Well I told ya I brought multiple interpretations as an Althusserian socialist! I need it for a syntopic reading of ALL the realms to come to a conclusion.
Yet I know this isn't bringing in a complete picture as we know the ones down the rung.
Ymmv
This one on agentic markets made me thing on the amount of information input, I merely in case, here's an article on that. Yet I'm against the singularity that much.
"A firm has never existed just to coordinate cheaply. It exists to absorb risk: to carry a brand you can still trust when the internet fills with AI-generated noise, to leave an audit trail, to be the last resort that answers for the liability when things go wrong, to hold enough capital to survive failures of business experimentation."
Even though I'm sceptical of the Courssian singularity
Yet with all this ressembly with all this, with my own opinion.
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT WITH PREPERATION.
💪🛋★
Here's a materialist/ideology interpretation of AI with structuralism. As I learn the tenets to apply to my method of understanding the world of qualitative differences. Here's an hour of a book I'm getting. B-B-Bonus video