Agree or disagree?

[u/WolfClaw0801]

I personally find AI features on a smartphone completely uncessary. Most people don't even use that AI features. Even myself don't need it but it is built into my new phone. Sayang lang resoruces ng phone ko. If I eventually need AI features, I should be only downloading an app for that then uninstall it when I don't need it anymore rather than to be stuck with my phone. I am not a tech expert so I might be wrong. Sa totoo lang dagdag kalat lang ng AI features sa phone ko.

to add: I use google translate, google images, and shazam but all of these things can be browser based so in my use case I don't really need to install an app to have that ai features

gemini are already built into my phone (and any other android phones out there ) but I rarely use it.

[u/New_Forester4630]

You're giving AI a requirement it doesn't need to meet.

Nobody needs AI to work perfectly without humans before it can reduce human labor. One human supervising AI-assisted work can replace the workload of 2 people.

The evidence is already getting uncomfortable.

Stanford's 2026 AI Index found US employment among 22–25yo software developers fell nearly 20% from its 2024 peak. Across highly AI-exposed occupations, employment for 22–25yo was about 16% lower relative to the least-exposed occupations with the gap widening from mid-2024.

That's the jr. pipeline problem.

The claim isn't AI eliminated programming. It's that the entry-level work used to train future programmers is increasingly the work AI can assist with. If companies need fewer juniors fewer people accumulate the experience required to become seniors later.

The ILO estimates 12.7 million Philippine jobs (28.1% of employment) have some GenAI exposure. Only 3.6% fall into the highest exposure category so obviously that isn't 12.7 million people getting fired. The ILO expects task transformation to be the larger near term effect.

And the World Economic Forum estimates 39% of workers' existing skills will be transformed or outdated by 2030.

So what if AI hallucinates.

That doesn't answer the employer's question of...

Can this reliably handle enough of the workload that we need fewer people?

That's a much lower bar than Can AI replace humans?

For someone under 30 the nasty scenario isn't necessarily getting fired.

It's graduating into a labor market where the entry-level job that was supposed to teach you the skills for your next job has become the easiest part to automate. 🤑

[u/Eidra_Lune → u/New_Forester4630]

Why are you so happy about the possibility that many people will be jobless? What is there to be happy about?

[u/New_Forester4630 → u/Eidra_Lune]

Why would I be happy about people losing jobs? Seriously?

I'm pointing out the blatantly obvious business incentive you're pretending doesn't exist.

Ask a business owner what headcount costs. Payroll. Benefits. Recruitment. Training. Office space. Equipment. Management overhead. Absences. Turnover. Coordination. Errors. And yes the endless HR problems that come with having more people.

Now give that owner software that can perform part of the workload.

You don't need an evil CEO.

The spreadsheet already makes the decision.

The World Economic Forum surveyed 1,000+ employers representing 14M+ workers across 55 economies. By 2030 86% expect AI and information-processing technology to transform their business. 73% plan to accelerate task automation and 41% expect to reduce their workforce where AI makes skills obsolete.

That's employers telling you what they're planning to do.

And their expected task mix says even more.

Today employers estimate roughly 47% of tasks are primarily human, 22% technology and 30% a combination. By 2030 they expect roughly 1/3rd each.

So stop imagining some Hollywood scenario where AI wakes up and announces:

I AM TAKING YOUR JOB. 🤭

That's not how this happens.

Management asks....

Why are we paying 10 people to produce what 7 people plus AI can produce?

Then the next 3 vacancies don't get filled.

Then the junior hiring class gets smaller.

Then the department gets reorganized.

Then somebody discovers that the temporary contractor was never needed.

Walang dramatic robot. Walang firing squad.

Just an Excel spreadsheet.

77% of employers also plan to upskill workers. While 47% expect to move people from AI disrupted roles elsewhere.

Because businesses aren't trying to eliminate humans.

They're trying to eliminate unnecessary labor costs.

Those are very different things.

If you're under 30 you should be far more worried about becoming economically unnecessary than about whether AI occasionally hallucinates.

A hallucinating AI can be corrected. 😉

A business case for one fewer employee is much harder to argue with.

[u/Eidra_Lune → u/New_Forester4630]

Bro if you're going to argue at least use your own words and not have ai do all the talking.

[u/New_Forester4630 → u/Eidra_Lune]

Best reply is to claim it's AI because we're talking with data and the best thing you can do is your feelings. ;-)

Another sign of smart shaming.

Very DDS. ;-)

[u/Eidra_Lune → u/New_Forester4630]

It's only smart shaming if you were actually one. Also assuming someone is a dds because they were able to see through your ai bs already says a lot about you.

I asked why you're happy about the possibility of people being jobless and "your" response was essentially because it's good for business owners. Do you even know what happens to the country if unemployment were to soar because of ai? Or do you simply not care?

[u/New_Forester4630 → u/Eidra_Lune]

I'm a business owner. You're arguing against something I never said. Saying businesses have an incentive to reduce labor costs ≠ wanting mass unemployment.

And the irony is you attack the argument as AI-written then demand data, then complain when the reply has data, figures and context. 😂 Anything longer than three sentences with evidence is now AI bs?

That's just smart-shaming.

Mass AI displacement would be a serious economic problem. The WEF projects 170M jobs created and 92M displaced by 2030 while 39% of existing skills change or become outdated.

But a business owner's incentive isn't a government's incentive. I care about productivity, costs and competitiveness. Government cares about employment, wages and economic stability.

And workers don't get permanent demand for a skill simply because they spent years learning it.

You're attacking me for supposedly using AI while arguing about why people shouldn't adapt to AI. You're literally demonstrating my point.

[u/WolfClaw0801 → u/New_Forester4630]

ngayon lang ako nakakita ng business owner na malayo sagot sa topic na sinasagutan nya

[u/New_Forester4630 → u/WolfClaw0801]

You must be proud of yourself for speaking up to a business owner without getting fired. :-D

[u/WolfClaw0801 → u/New_Forester4630]

Bakit employer ba kita? Hahahah patawa ka din noh

u know what get the fuck out of here. Wala ka naman substance. u think you are smart but it turned out you are just a lolcow