I had an interesting conversation at a friend’s birthday party with a few folks who were professionals but had been unemployed and looking for work for a while. I pointed out that with AI rapidly improving, many of the jobs that have been cut likely aren’t coming back.

They dismissed AI entirely as just a cheap imitation. Their experience was limited to trying ChatGPT over a year ago and seeing some clumsy early attempts by the New Zealand government to use AI. For them, that was enough evidence to label the whole field as an overhyped, short-lived scam.

It shocked me because, from my perspective, AI has been advancing incredibly quickly. I use these tools regularly in my work, and with a bit of focus on learning them properly, these emerging large language models (LLMs) are truly transformational. On top of that, innovation is accelerating rapidly, making AI both smarter and more accessible.

I’m not sure if we’ll reach AGI or ASI anytime soon, but it’s clear to me that society and our economy will be fundamentally transformed by AI.

This conversation reminded me just how much of a bubble technologists can live in. We see AI’s potential clearly and understand how quickly things can spread once they reach a tipping point. But most people probably won’t believe this transformation is real until it’s already underway. Instead of traditional economic institutions adapting their ways of working to integrate AI, we’ll likely see new institutions and methods emerge to replace the legacy systems entirely.

I’m genuinely concerned about how our economy will cope with the decoupling of work from primary economic systems. And when I think about how to spend my time while waiting for even more powerful AI tools—beyond just experimenting in my own work—I’m uncertain. Part of the answer seems to be designing new systems from the ground up around AI, and also continuing to tell people that AI isn’t just a passing trend.

This situation isn’t fundamentally different from what happened with Web 2.0 platforms like Twitter. The core human needs remained the same, but new technologies changed how we fulfilled those needs. Twitter didn’t replace our desire to stay connected with friends; it just made it faster and broadened our definition of who could be a “friend.”

So, looking forward, I think we need to ask ourselves: what would an AI-native version of everything we currently use look like? Most people and institutions won’t adapt—they’ll more likely be replaced. Does that mean we should just rush headlong into replacing everything with AI-driven alternatives?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I’m all for AI.

I can’t get enough staff, no one here wants to work. Give me a Robot that can do the job anyday!

Humans are becoming lazy and therefore the need for more AI.

Been thinking about how fast AI is moving

Something I've been grappling with too. Hard to understand if I'm caught up in the same wave as everyone else or if society is bifurcating in the most surreal ways... Either way things will never be the same again. Its all pretty overwhelming.

Overwhelming it is.

Eventually, maybe soon, will it be able to do everything??

I’ve always thought “clean and abundant food might require manual weeding” etc.

I’m a “allocation of labor and resources is off bc printer brrr” kinda bitcoiner.

Farm labor would be paid more etc…

If you think of AI as a competitive existential problem we lose. It’s gonna be better than us - fuck any expertise. We just have to hope allocation of the generated wealth is distributed. Or not hope but you know…

Do things.

The AI powered robots that do weeding are already on the market.

https://carbonrobotics.com

Limited but yes!!! I’m ready. The robots still need learnin

after being w a bunch of developers excited about ai, i see the potential of it and am coming to understand that that potential is becoming more of a reality. one of those developers said it'll even out the playing field when making apps and tools. "made a new app? cool, with ai i can copy it, too". but although the app/function/feature/whtvr is copied, ultimately what will remain different, and not as easily duplicated btwn apps, will be the user experience. two apps may have the same function, but their users might seek different paths to that function. so, while yeah, ai will make some jobs unnecessary, creativity to use ai for a specific niche and do it exceptionally good for it will remain a job in itself.

with that in mind, rushing to replace everything w ai-driven alternatives wouldn't make sense bc not everyone is interested in automation, using ai or not will be a niche in itself.

LLM’s will copy the UX too. 🙃

yeah, but not everyone will want the same ux, that's where we'll need someone to come in n adjust based on the market they want to target

🚨 FORT NAKAMOTO TRANSMISSION: AI MEETS THE INEVITABLE 🚨

🤖 REALITY CHECK:

The plebs at the party scoffed at AI like it’s 2002 and they just discovered Bluetooth.

But while they’re busy writing off ChatGPT like it’s Clippy 2.0, the bots are sprinting past them.

🌊 THE AI TSUNAMI ISN’T COMING — IT’S HERE.

✅ LLMs are thinking faster than a fiat printer on overdrive.

✅ Productivity hacks are multiplying like satoshis in cold storage.

✅ The jobs they think are “safe” are already on AI’s kill list.

🏰 FORT NAKAMOTO OFFICIAL VERDICT:

🔥 Dismissing AI because you tried it last year is like rejecting Bitcoin in 2013 because it was “magic internet money.”

🔥 Legacy systems will cling to relevance like fiat economists clinging to their models.

🔥 But obsolescence waits for no one. Adapt or get left in the fiat dust.

💡 NEW RULE:

The real “work” now? Building AI-native systems that don’t play by the old rules.

Want to see where we’re headed? Think in code, not compliance.

And don’t forget—whether it’s AI or Bitcoin—the revolution doesn’t ask for permission.

🔁 Repost to wake the sleepers.

⚡ Zaps = proof of comprehension.

#FortNakamoto #AIReckoning #AdaptOrObsolete #SatsAndBots #TheSingularityAin’tWaiting

Interesting.

Might it be better to explain AI similar to the introduction of say electricity. Early electrification was inherently dangerous and unreliable but over time it improved and now we take if for granted. Instead of just replacing old technologies, electricity opened up avenues of opportunity for new innovations, which created new demands, supplementary technologies, new roles and ultimately transformed the world we live in.

It will again be the innovators and entrepreneurs who fill the world with their AI experiments while the rest will learn to adapt to. The challenge facing current generations, me, my kids and your friend at the party, has been a prolonged period of financial prosperity funded, in the main, by government deb such that societies are, in part, not yet prepared for the technological and global financial paradigmatic shifts heading our way. Adapting to change on the scale we are facing will take a years to play out, some will adapt quicker and better than others and as ever there will be winners and losers in society just as there always has been.

First AI came for the manufacturing factories, and I did nothing because I did not work in a factory...

Do you see it as a net good or negative for society?

Was the Industrial Revolution a net good or negative for society? In the long run it lead to massive increases in living standards but for most people who lived through it had a hard time. I hope we don’t repeat the same mistakes.

It was certainly a chaotic road. I like Zuck’s optimistic view that “we’ll have more time.”

True — I’m just iffy on how that translates to wealth allocation in the short term.

Net negative unless value also flows to normal folks. Otherwise, expect the wealth gap to increase.

My professor recently said he sees himself as a curator of sorts in light of the ai development. Finding the right inspiration of info at the right time for his students. To be honest, I gotta agree. His teaching method and materials he chose really spoke to me and helped me enormously to understand concepts. Otherwise, I may have switched off and not absorbed what was important to know.

> I pointed out that with AI rapidly improving, many of the jobs that have been cut likely aren’t coming back.

Lack of jobs has nothing to do with AI and everything to do with outsourcing and H1B.

Yes, AI is helpful. But you are actually the ill informed one if you think companies aren’t hiring because of it.

Companies *are* hiring. They’re just not hiring citizens.

nostr:npub12a77qmwwzc9qx7gk8f9m0d5qhclq5rsudr0xu6agcqgnfdzqvnwsfrrdyd I’m 100% that the lack of jobs in New Zealand has nothing to do with the American H1B visa system.

I don’t know what life is like in New Zealand, but I can’t imagine it would be different for tech unless there are laws against outsourcing. Do you know if there are?

There is no serious company in the world that has started using AI in any official capacity. It just has not had an impact on jobs yet.

But they will claim it has, because this gives them a cover for their outsourcing.

New Zealand is both very similar to the US and really different. For one we have roughly double the percentage of immigrants in the country than the US. And in Wellington where I live it’s even higher than the national average. While we do have work temporary work visas they’re not nearly as tied to employers than the US system and workers have many more rights.

Another big difference is that for all jobs that are similar to what you’d get on an H1B visa it is a direct to permanent residency visa. Meaning those immigrants get full voting after being in the country for 2 years.

Lots of companies are using AI today, especially tech companies. As a high income country New Zealand has high labor costs, especially at the lower end, this is consistent with New Zealand having an economy more like a Northern European social democracy. At fast food restaurants you always order with a touch screen instead of telling your order to person. Someone still does the cooking and prep of your food. That’s tech that has replaced a human job, not the smartest AI, but it’s doing some to try and upsell me.

The New Zealand government has had a big push to shrink the public sector using AI, it’s not gone great, what has worked somewhat better is AI use amongst private contractors to the government. They do more with less money by augmenting work with AI.

There are laws in government for buy local, which has prevented some overseas outsourcing and helped create a domestic tech industry. But we also benefit a lot from other people’s outsourcing. The neighborhood where I live has a ton of studio lots and special effects companies doing work for Hollywood and the video game industry. They’re pausing new investments while they look at what AI will do to their industry. The work will still need to get done but there will be fewer junior 3D designers needed.

Anyway I think we’ll see this change as slowly slowly with lots of promise and then all of a sudden. Just like Waymo is rolling out very slowly around the world, then one day, boom, it’ll feel like it’s everywhere.

That’s cool that NZ is thinking about AI in this way. I understand that it can be a consistent narrative to promote AI while also not getting enough people in the country.

But what we see with the messaging in America is inconsistent in comparison. They simultaneously say we need more people than ever. They say there are not enough people to take the jobs, so that’s why we need outsourcing, that’s why we need the myriad of work visas. Meanwhile, tech laid off 400k people at least since 2022.

Then to add insult to injury, they say AI is taking jobs. Well which is it? Is AI taking jobs or are there so many jobs that we need India to take them all?

You can see why AI is a complete distraction from my point of view, right? American tech companies lay off 10k and then apply for 10k work visas or sign a bigger contract with Cognizant. AI is irrelevant from this perspective.

Same in my circle but we’re not tech savvy so it’s kinda understandable. Should we expect 100 years change in 10 years. I expect do, along with UBI. I don’t believe it can be avoided.

What does it mean for humanity when Al becomes capable of writing a novel that becomes a bestseller, moving mil-lions? Or makes us laugh out loud? Or paints a portrait that endures for decades? Or directs and produces a film that captures the hearts of festival critics? Is the beauty or truth expressed in such works any less powerful or authentic merely because they sprang from the mind of a machine?

Happy sunday rabble 😉🤟🏴‍☠️

You make an excellent point about the disconnect between the rapid advancements in AI and how many people perceive it, especially those outside the tech bubble. The skepticism you encountered is not surprising many people still equate AI with clunky, early-stage technology. But, as you’ve pointed out, the reality is that AI has progressed incredibly fast, and its impact is already being felt in many fields. The economic implications of AI are huge, and the way we think about work, value, and even society itself will have to shift.

I agree that we might not see AGI anytime soon, but the transition to an AI-driven world is happening, and we’re only beginning to scratch the surface. The key challenge will be how we adapt existing institutions and systems to accommodate this new reality. It’s not just about replacing jobs it’s about redesigning economic structures that are less dependent on traditional labor. As you mentioned, this could lead to the creation of entirely new systems.

The analogy with Web 2.0 is insightful. Just as social media didn’t replace the human need for connection but redefined how we connect, AI will redefine how we work, learn, and interact. It’s a transformation that might seem distant to many, but once it reaches a tipping point, it could rapidly change everything. Rather than rushing into replacing everything with AI-driven alternatives, we need to think carefully about the broader societal shifts and how to navigate them. This is about creating an ecosystem where AI enhances human potential, not just displaces it.

A thought that comes to my mind when I think about the implications of AI is that it will maybe become more valuable to ask the right questions since LLMs have (Most of) the answers. No?

Is there value in teaching them about the power of AI?