this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
54 points (80.0% liked)

Technology

87833 readers
2380 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
54
Bill Gates calls for ‘human-reserved’ jobs in face of AI takeover (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by subarctictundra@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I’ve started calling this domain human reserved. I like the phrase human reserved because it makes me think of nature reserves – places where we could put buildings and roads, but we choose not to because the loss would be too great.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] subarctictundra@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

After the attacks of 9/11 the US government went through its biggest reorganisation since World War II for the purpose of improving just one function, national security. AI will require much, much more. It will affect national security as well as employment, education, taxation, energy, elections, air and water, public health, the financial system, law enforcement, transportation, ...

They're telling us to change our systems, yet it's as a responce to a change they themselves brought about. Just think of how much public money could have been saved if they had just refrained from developing AI in the first place. People's jobs are getting automated and they are getting asked to pay for the privilige

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not developing AI. We've been working on and with ANI for a very long time, and constant research on what might make AGI possible. What side railed everything is some companies found out they can do lots of amazing things with LLMs, a subset of AI science, and investors will pay them to make better versions. They talk a lot about how what they're doing will lead to AGI, but these people (or the scientists doing the actual work) know better than that. LLMs can possibly be part of what AGI uses, but it's on the wrong branch. And they've given up following the other branches because this one is paying off.

So in short, we could have done better (both ethically and core results), but once again money got in the way.

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

I don’t think how “we” are currently choosing to use AI was inevitable but I do think AI was inevitable