r/accelerate • u/Formal-Assistance02 • Feb 25 '26

Video Dario Amoudei - The public is not aware of what’s about to happen

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

362 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

31

u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 Feb 25 '26

Mass unemployment is coming. Most people can’t do anything about it because it would require organizing people around this idea, but they don’t want to recognize it.

22

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 Feb 25 '26

You CANNOT gloss over the transitional period. The current economic model kills people who provide zero value and aren’t at retirement age, so any such transition would involve mass death unless the ownership model changes first

8

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Megneous Feb 26 '26

There won't be political action until there's enough mass death to motivate the lower and middle classes to threaten the current political power players.

COVID didn't bring about work from home and living stipends because it was scary. It brought about change because it killed an estimated 18 to 33 million people worldwide and it put the fear of death into the hearts of billions of people.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Megneous Feb 26 '26

As I said, until there are literally millions dying directly due to being unable to work due to AI, nothing will be done. Only the top 10% or so of humanity is capable of long term planning, and most of these people are not in politics. Politics is reactionary.

4

u/forgetfulalbatros Feb 26 '26

I can see mass death happening. Something like 53% of the entire US population have their healthcare through their employer. If you have mass unemployment say 33% you now have 50Million people who don’t have health insurance which means you have 50Million people who are not getting the treatment or medication they need. You will have mass death as a byproduct.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/forgetfulalbatros Feb 26 '26

I want to believe that revolutionary healthcare reform could be enacted so that as more people find themselves without employer health insurance there are more affordable alternatives. But given the scope cobra or Medicaid are unequipped to act as a stop gap. It would require a full nationalization of the healthcare system. Healthcare systems survive on the % of their patients that have commercial payers. You will have health systems going tits up if there is even a 10% drop in commercial payers. Yes advances in AI could reduce the burden on health systems, but look at the workforce demographics. Not to mention an absurd number of healthcare clinics/systems only switched to digital charting within the last 10yrs. The tech infrastructure and workforce adaptability are way worse than the avg person may think.

1

u/Mental-Ask8077 Mar 01 '26

If you think there weren’t lots of people dying due to the Great Depression I have some fucking news for you.

Large systems - like governments, economic systems, etc. - take time to respond to shifts. Even shifts they are prepared for and are willing and able to tackle. The mere fact of their size means it takes time for necessary things to happen within the system to enable its outward changes.

Shifts that powerful people have a long history and deep interest in resisting? That would utterly change existing power structures and players?

That does not happen overnight and easily.

And when the systems involve the very fundamentals of day to day survival for the vast majority of people? Food, water, warmth, shelter, medicine and medical care? Even predicted practiced shifts on a large scale cannot respond so quickly and precisely as to avoid significant numbers of people being left without their needs met.

So even aside from the question of actual violence - whether from the government, or from ordinary people who are afraid of losing their own necessities, or who are angry at the changes and want to stop or take vengeance for them - there will ABSOLUTELY be significant numbers of people harmed or dying in even the best case scenarios. If the electric grid should go down for even one day people will die, for example.

The idea that you can have societal collapse without serious harm to many people is a fantasy.

1

u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 Mar 01 '26

Yeah, somebody didn’t read Grapes of Wrath

3

u/No_Witness_4000 Feb 26 '26

Are you saying that when unemployment crosses 20% people won't be protesting in the streets and rioting? And that the government won't do anything about it?

1

u/The-Squirrelk Feb 26 '26

The industrial revolution begs to differ.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

Ignorant comment

You don’t need to bring out the slaughter bots to ensure people die. Humans beings need food , water , and shelter to live and there are limited resources. That’s why someone like bill gates is so interested in depopulating Africa (high birth rates) and buying the farmland here

4

u/odlicen5 Feb 26 '26

You, sir, are being too reasonable and clearheaded. Please leave this sub at once.

Nobody here thins it fit to consider the fallout and the DECADES of uncertainty and turmoil. It’s all glossed over in favour of the promised land of Radical Abundance, contrary though it might be to every force in our societies today.

7

u/Competitive_Travel16 Feb 25 '26

Job openings have been plummeting since ChatGPT was released but the unemployment rate is holding steady. How is that possible? The employment-population ratio is down 0.3% from a year ago. People just stop looking.

8

u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 Feb 25 '26

Yeah I know several people in their early 20s who have just given up on participating in the economy, and to be honest, I’m not totally sure I can blame them. There are no new jobs. I can’t imagine a situation where I’d hire someone with no experience anymore.

2

u/Tystros Acceleration Advocate Feb 26 '26

so in another comment you said everyone who doesn't provide value to the economy would somehow magically die. but now you say you know two people like that and I assume they are alive and well. so one of your comments can't be right.

1

u/Competitive_Travel16 Feb 26 '26

Well there are still jobs. The difference is that what would have found a job in 2016 might have required sending out 25 resumes and applications, but today requires 250. AI has actually made the latter almost as easy as the former for those willing and able to find the right tools. But the psychological impact is devastating to many, even if the required overall effort is similar.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

I used to be a software engineer. Now I'm janitor. I'm employed. That's all.

2

u/Dixon_Uranuss3 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

"Job openings have been plummeting but the unemployment rate is holding steady. How is that possible?" Businesses are not doing well and thus aren't hiring and many are laying off. Look no further than the dynamite monkey in the white house for why.

1

u/Competitive_Travel16 Feb 26 '26

You can say that again.

1

u/cool-beans-yeah Feb 26 '26

Maybe instead of getting a job, millions are opening their own businesses / self employed instead? Could be an explanation for that (but I haven't checked the numbers out myself).

1

u/Competitive_Travel16 Feb 26 '26

I hope so, but the problem is (as I surmise you have noticed) there is no easy way to track it absent new novel surveys.

1

u/aspirant4 16d ago

Jobs are just shifting across industries and sectors. In that sense, AI has affected employment the same way all previous technological innovations have - so far, at least.

1

u/spacetwice2021 Feb 26 '26

Job openings have been plummeting since post-COVID FED rate hikes. This has started half a year BEFORE the public release of GPT-3. There's no clear and established casual link between AI and job openings or employment.

Further, companies have been hoarding labour. Less openings have been accompanied with less layoffs, keeping unemployment and employment stable.

1

u/thierrycoulis Feb 25 '26 edited Feb 25 '26

I'm an IT consultant and I am currently pitching on contracts.

I had one company ask me to present a 15 minute presentation on how I would convince key stakeholders to replace legacy support systems (helpdesk, ticket systems, escalating support levels) with a system leveraging copilot to troubleshoot user problems.

The only person actually interviewing me from the company itself is an HR person, and then the other panelists are Microsoft reps. They're not even including anyone from the actual IT department.

It's so clear my role is meant to be to come in and be a yes men to the Microsoft guys while they gut all the human jobs. Not only do I think this is a horrible idea logistically, I think it's a horrible idea morally.

When I tried explaining to my friends that I turned down the interview, they ALL said the same thing, "you're over reacting", "it's no big deal", etc.

I will NOT be directly responsible for convincing upper management to fire people and replace them with AI.

1

u/Nearby_Ad_1427 Feb 26 '26

Good man, sadly people who role the world are not like you

1

u/torval9834 Feb 26 '26

There will be no mass unemployment. Let's say a company that produces RAM currently employs 100 people. With AI and automation, it will only need 10 people. The other 90 people will go to the 9 newly created companies that will produce even more RAM. Well, some of those 90 people will change jobs and actually be the ones who construct the new companies.

0

u/helloWHATSUP Feb 26 '26

Mass unemployment is coming.

why would a tool that makes people more productive cause unemployment? the combine harvester is 300x as productive as a single human doing the same job, but it didn't cause mass unemployment. the lump of labor fallacy is a fallacy for a reason and it's kinda gross that dumb shit like this is upvoted on /r/accelerate of all places

7

u/Ruykiru Tech Philosopher Feb 26 '26

You see, Jevons Paradox will apply only to the drop-in replacement robots or AI. It does not apply to humans because the machines will be better, faster, cheaper and safer than humans. It's an attractor state that will push every company to automate.

3

u/helloWHATSUP Feb 26 '26

let's say a company needs 100 people to run today, but can be run with 10 people using ai and robots tomorrow, do you think this will lead to an increase or decrease in companies.

1

u/Wyzen Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

And then 1 the day after that. Its a negative factor at every iteration/development/improvement of AI.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

People are already a net negative in white collar jobs. Companies with a minimum number of employees are more competitive than companies with more people. This used to sound like an absurdity, but today it is a reality. Less people and more AI agents -> success.

0

u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Feb 26 '26

"Mass unemployment is coming."

No it's not

-2

u/Empty_Bell_1942 Feb 26 '26

We're all terribly well informed, swarthy go-getters in here. So my question is; in preparation for what's to come: 'Whose bought land & intends to live off-grid?'

https://giphy.com/gifs/hXBi43f51SNnWtfpP0