AI and Jobs: The Predicted Apocalypse Hasn't Arrived
The Economist forecasts an AI job apocalypse, but rising costs and corporate resistance tell a different story.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
The Economist predicts an AI job apocalypse; data tells another story
A La Vanguardia analysis cited The Economist's forecast that artificial intelligence will destroy millions of jobs. However, those working with AI on the ground paint a very different picture, where automation faces exorbitant costs and business decisions that do not always seek efficiency.
The forecast dividing experts
The Economist has not been alone in predicting a labor catastrophe. The widely circulated report argues that generative AI will eliminate positions in offices, administration, and services. However, underlying the debate is a skeptical current recalling previous prophecies—such as taxi drivers against Uber—that never fully materialized. While manual workers seem confident their trades are difficult to automate, office workers bear the brunt, at least in the narrative.
The reality of costs: Microsoft and Uber slow down
One of the strongest arguments against an immediate apocalypse comes from tech companies themselves. According to recent reports, Microsoft ordered its engineers to stop using AI tools because costs were skyrocketing. Uber exhausted its annual AI budget in four months. These data points suggest that the technology, far from being a savings machine, consumes vast resources. Those involved in CRM implementation or automation note that many projects clash with managerial resistance, who prefer maintaining oversized staff rather than assuming the political risk of mass layoffs.
What if AI justifies cuts already planned?
Another interpretation gaining traction is that the apocalypse discourse serves as a cover for layoffs companies already had in mind. A recurring comment suggests AI is used as an excuse to justify staff reductions due to overstaffing, paving the way for universal basic income or state bailouts. Meanwhile, in sectors like US accounting, the shortage of qualified professionals leads to hiring workers from Latin America, contradicting the narrative of massive destruction.
The debate, far from closed, reflects that AI is advancing, but unevenly and with costs no one in the media predicts. The true apocalypse, for now, is that we still don't know when it will arrive.
Related debates in the forum
A La Vanguardia analysis cited The Economist's forecast that artificial intelligence will destroy millions of jobs. However, those working with AI on the ground paint a very different picture, where automation faces exorbitant costs and business decisions that do not always seek efficiency.
The forecast dividing experts
The Economist has not been alone in predicting a labor catastrophe. The widely circulated report argues that generative AI will eliminate positions in offices, administration, and services. However, underlying the debate is a skeptical current recalling previous prophecies—such as taxi drivers against Uber—that never fully materialized. While manual workers seem confident their trades are difficult to automate, office workers bear the brunt, at least in the narrative.
The reality of costs: Microsoft and Uber slow down
One of the strongest arguments against an immediate apocalypse comes from tech companies themselves. According to recent reports, Microsoft ordered its engineers to stop using AI tools because costs were skyrocketing. Uber exhausted its annual AI budget in four months. These data points suggest that the technology, far from being a savings machine, consumes vast resources. Those involved in CRM implementation or automation note that many projects clash with managerial resistance, who prefer maintaining oversized staff rather than assuming the political risk of mass layoffs.
What if AI justifies cuts already planned?
Another interpretation gaining traction is that the apocalypse discourse serves as a cover for layoffs companies already had in mind. A recurring comment suggests AI is used as an excuse to justify staff reductions due to overstaffing, paving the way for universal basic income or state bailouts. Meanwhile, in sectors like US accounting, the shortage of qualified professionals leads to hiring workers from Latin America, contradicting the narrative of massive destruction.
The debate, far from closed, reflects that AI is advancing, but unevenly and with costs no one in the media predicts. The true apocalypse, for now, is that we still don't know when it will arrive.
Related debates in the forum
- Miguel Bose kneeling for Henry Nowak: · 39 replies
- Food collection campaign at Eroski. At least these guys are straightforward · 44 replies
- MARLASKON EXPLODING IN LIVE STREAM · 181 replies
- INSANE: BBVA and IVIE propose buying PRIVATE HOUSING with YOUR TAXES for SOCIAL RENTALS to IMMIGRANTS. And this implies... · 15 replies
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (109 replies).
More summaries
-
The job displacement coming is from robots, not immigrants
AI and robots will destroy 300 million jobs by 2030. In Spain, 60% of hours are automatable. The job replacement is technological, not...
-
Spain loses 272,172 jobs in 24 hours—a record since the reform
Social Security records its largest single-day drop in affiliates since the labor reform: 272,172 jobs destroyed. Is it seasonality or collapse?
-
Career advice: Is extreme effort a strategy or exploitation?
An analysis of professional growth: does going the extra mile guarantee promotion or lead to workplace exploitation?
-
Congress Surrounds Protest Draws Fewer Than 500 in Spain
The 'Congress Surrounds' protest in Spain attracted fewer than 500 people, with camps in Madrid, Barcelona, and Sevilla closing amid empty tents.
-
Gabriel Zucman's 2% wealth tax plan: will Spain's middle class foot the bill?
We analyse Gabriel Zucman's 2% levy on the ultra-rich: tax justice or a real risk to the savings of Spain's middle class?
-
.
The story of a father who left 90% of his fortune to his youngest son, based on character rather than tradition. Did he get it right?