You mean my meat proxy skills while wearing a Ratatouille machine-vision head camera that tells me what wrench to pick up and how to crimp the Pex rings?

You're telling me Google Gemini robot 2 tying a trash bag isn't also gonna be able to crimp PEX rings?

It will. But having watched the video, I can tie one faster and cheaper. This week. Next week, who knows?

The solution is probably a trash bag with a mini forklift compatible lift rings, an optical center mark, a ratcheting closure, and make a raspberry PI do the computing millions of dollars of tooling to make a robot compatible trash bag but it might be worth it, deploy the bean counters!

Plumbing is kind of a hard job, definitely not fun for anyone above middle age. And given it will pay minimum wage, I think I'd just take a life of leisure instead.

Minimum wage? Where I live, the plumber median wage is pretty much exactly the national median.

Sure, but that is today. When AI decimates the knowledge fields, a whole lot of people are going to be looking at different career options. There will not be any shortage of people hoping to make money in the trades, and with that surge in supply will come a collapse in prices.

Ah, then I understand you. But please, let's stop with this inevitability. If AI decimates, not when.

Apologies, I'm with you. I was speaking to the hypothetical, not trying to suggest it is inevitable. I think it is uncertain how this plays out, but I am an optimist and I think it ends up a net positive.

Why would it not? The economic incentives make it inevitable. Might as well expect water to not flow downhill.

It is very plausible that LLMs never get to 100% replacement for knowledge workers and the winners will the people who use both, leaving behind the people who thought all they needed to do was cut costs by doing existing workloads without humans. It remains to be seen if the constraint on quantity of knowledge work was the people or the work.

It remains to be seen, but a reasonable argument against this is found in the progression of chess AI engines. After Kasparov was beaten there was still a period where the best humans working with machines were still better than the machines on their own. Eventually (around 2020 I think?) this was no longer the case, having even the best humans on Earth in the loop was a net negative. There are reasonable arguments against this, but I've found them mostly unconvincing.

> Why would it not? The economic incentives make it inevitable.

Citation needed. Again, I wanna emphasize that I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm just saying that it's not a given that it will.

There is very little sign that current models can do anything but (at best!) augment most knowledge workers (with some exceptions). And there are very reasonable open questions about whether it's economically, and ecologically, sustainable to continue development at anything near the current pace. There is, in fact, plenty of indicators that even the current SoTA is the result of a financial overexertion.

> There will not be any shortage of people hoping to make money in the trades, and with that surge in supply will come a collapse in prices.

And the worst case downward spiral will involve not only a surge in supply but a drastic drop in demand to go along with it.

All of those previous "knowledge workers" scurrying for the trades not only become more labor supply, but without their cushy jobs they will no longer be able to afford to hire trades people to prop up the demand side.

Double whammy.

Actually had a plumber here earlier today which was an ordeal so have been asking that myself too...

Have you heard about "physical AI" ?

See my response to the similar reply at the top of the thread