All language subtitles for [English (auto-generated) (auto-generated)] AI CEO’s Job Replacement Panic_ What Research Really Shows [DownSub.com]

The CEO of Anthropics says that AI will

eliminate half of entry- level jobs and

push unemployment to 20%. But the newly

released Apple research paints a

different picture. I really worry,

particularly at the entry level, that

the AI models are are are, you know,

very much at the center of what what an

entry-level human worker would do. AI is

already at the center of what a junior

employee could do. And I can agree with

this. If we're not concerned about

quality, then I can agree that AI can be

used for most junior level positions.

But when I say this, I stand to gain

nothing. He, however, is signaling to

investors, to the stock market, and to

the governments that AI will replace

workers. There has been an estimated $2

trillion invested into the AI space

since Open AI released Chat GPT in

November of 2022. These investors have

put so much money into this space that

the payoff needs to be replacement of

human workers. It's not enough to just

make us more efficient because well,

we've already become more efficient with

AI. That's why we continue to see this

hype because if the hype dies down, the

AI bubble bursts and so much money is

lost. Significantly more money than in

the dot bubble. The dot bubble saw an

estimated $400 billion invested over a

six-year period. AI infrastructure

spending for 2025 alone is an estimated

$320 billion. This is a completely

different breed of bubble. If efficiency

is not what these investors are after,

if it really is about replacement, then

these AI CEOs have to come on here and

continue hyping up the AI. And I think

that's what he's doing here. He's

basically signaling to the public and to

other companies that his product as of

now is good enough to replace a junior

worker. and therefore you should use his

product. He's framing it as if he's

warning us, but it's really just

promotion for his product because fear

sells. And and you know, these these

technology changes have happened before,

but I think what is striking to me about

the this this AI boom is that it's

bigger and it's broader and it's moving

faster than anything has before. Again,

I can agree that this is a lot broader.

I often see people making the argument

that this is similar to the invention of

tractors and how that affected farmers

or when Ford started doing automation.

But AI is affecting various roles in

almost all industries. And I recognize

that people are losing their jobs to AI

right now. Regardless if AI can perform

on a junior employee level, these

companies have to push the narrative

that they can. Other companies are

buying into it and laying off their

workforce. Take Microsoft as an example.

They recently said that 30% of their

code is now AI generated. And they just

recently laid off 6,000 employees.

Notably, most of those employees being

managers. Microsoft has to lay off

people. They have to make these bold

claims because they have to sell their

own product. Microsoft is selling

co-pilot subscriptions to corporations.

And if Microsoft itself has a ton of

engineers, then how good is their

co-pilot? If Microsoft is not able to

use its own AI co-pilot to scale back

the amount of engineers it has, then how

can they sell this to other enterprise

level companies? Why would these

companies want to buy their product?

It's similar to the startup Lovable.

They claim to be the last piece of

software and they claim to allow

ordinary people to build their own

software. They are based in Stockholm

and I am as well and Stockholm is a

small community of engineers. We talk.

So I hear about all of the software

engineers being hired at Lovable. If

your AI platform is that good, why do

you still need to hire software

engineers? You know this better better

than anybody or as well as as all the

names we know people Sam Alman and

others who are working Elon Musk and AI.

Why are you raising the alarm? because

it's not necessarily I would think in

your best interest because a lot of the

messages we hear from you know some AI

CEOs and stuff is is a little bit more

calming like you know these agents are

going to be great in your life a

fantastic thing. It's interesting that

the interviewer thinks he doesn't stand

to gain anything from this interview.

The first obvious thing he stands to

gain is potential market share. If a

person subscribed to ChatGpt watches

this and feels that Claude is a better

model or just that this CEO is more

trustworthy, then maybe they switch from

Chat GPT to Claude. The other thing I've

been considering is how does this

position him in public opinion? Because

as the interviewer said, Sam Alman, Elon

Musk, when they're interviewed, they

focus on mainly positives that we will

see in society thanks to AI. But here we

have Daario sounding the alarms that

there's going to be this hypothetical

bloodbath and that the government's need

to respond. But if we think about it,

Elon Musk has alienated himself due to

politics. The sentiment online about Sam

Alman is that well a lot of people say

he's soulless and which when I watch him

I just don't get this like trustworthy

feeling from him. And then you have

people like Palunteer's CEO who every

time I listen to him he's just going off

the rails about something. I think this

positions Daario as a white knight, that

he went against his own self-interest

because no other CEO had the guts to do

it. And for that reason, we should be

thankful. We should trust him. It feels

like a bit of a savior complex with

ulterior motives. I think he's examined

what the other AI CEOs are doing, and

he's just choosing to do the complete

opposite in a way that's still strategic

for him and his company, but in a way

that positions him as an authority

figure and someone that the public can

trust. Yeah, I mean, you know, I think I

think the reason I'm raising the alarm

is that I think others others haven't as

much and you know, I think I think

someone needs to say it. You know, I am

very skeptic of this entire interview

because the timing is all a bit

suspicious. Anthropic recently announced

Claude Opus 4 and Claude Sonnet 4 pretty

much right before this interview. We

also recently saw that the CEO of CLA

announced that they would no longer be

AI first and would be hiring humans

again because the AI approach led to

lower quality. An IBM survey reveals

this is a common occurrence for AI use

and business where just one in four

projects delivers the return it promised

and even fewer are scaled up. We also

saw the recent scandal with Builder AI.

If you're not familiar, it was a

Londonbased startup that claimed to

essentially build software using AI.

Their AI Natasha would ask you questions

and present you with a full-fledged

software application. However, their AI

turned out to be actually Indians.

Apparently, the startup was employing

more than 700 software engineers in

India, which is honestly quite

impressive. These software engineers

must have been using AI because I just

don't know how they were able to have

that quick of a turnaround time without

using some type of AI. So, honestly, I'm

impressed. Builder AI raised over $450

million and received investment from

Microsoft. They recently announced that

they were filing for bankruptcy and

closing down, citing historic challenges

and past decisions that place

significant strain on its financial

position. Unfortunately for these AI

CEOs, what we also saw recently was

Apple releasing its research paper on

large reasoning models. I will have this

paper linked below because it is a long

research paper. It's 30 pages, but I

highly recommend you read it because

it's very interesting. The title of the

paper is the illusion of thinking,

understanding the strengths and

limitations of reasoning models via the

lens of problem complexity. I won't go

through everything in the research paper

because again it is very long. But some

key points for me is that when the AI is

given a clear method to solve the

problem, it doesn't use it. The AI can't

follow the instructions properly to even

solve the problem when given the

solution algorithm. It's like giving

someone a recipe and that person doing

the recipe in different orders and not

even checking if they're doing it

properly. Another surprising thing was

when the AI is presented with a more

complex problem, it actually puts in

less effort rather than more. To quote

the paper, it says, "Accuracy

progressively declines as problem

complexity increases until reaching

complete collapse. We observe that

reasoning models initially increase

their thinking tokens proportionally

with problem complexity. However, upon

approaching a critical threshold, which

closely corresponds to their accuracy

collapse point, models

counterintuitively begin to reduce their

reasoning effort despite increasing

problem difficulty. I think this

research paper is quite interesting

because it sheds light on where are we

actually with large language models

being able to reason. If we only listen

to these AI CEOs, then we would think

these models are doing a lot of

thinking, a lot of reasoning. But thanks

to this research paper, it shows that

actually these models are reasoning less

the more complex a problem becomes. So

between Claude 4 being released and CLA

hiring humans again and builder AI

proving to be actually Indians and

Apple's damning research, I can only

conclude that what the CEO is saying is

all for free publicity. That's right.

I'm aware of my position that I'm I'm

building this technology while also

expressing concerns about it. You know,

the reason I'm doing both of those

things is, you know, one, I think the

benefits are massive. And you know the

the the second thing I would say is look

there are as you mentioned six or seven

companies in the US building this

technology right if we stopped doing it

tomorrow the rest would continue if I

stopped doing it well then other people

would still do it this is like when

investigative journalists interview

dealers and ask them don't you feel bad

about what you're doing and dealers are

always like yes but if I didn't deal

someone else would if Daario truly

believes that what he's building will be

a bloodbath as he says Then where are

his morals? If all of us somehow stopped

doing it tomorrow, then China would just

beat us. And I don't think China winning

this in this technology is, you know, I

I I I don't think that helps anyone or

makes the situation any better. Wasn't

that the same argument that the

researchers who built the hydrogen bomb

used? Like if they stopped building,

then Russia would win. Everyone I've

talked to has said, "This technological

change looks different. It looks faster.

It looks harder to adapt to. It's

broader. the pace of progress keeps

catching people offguard. If we think

about it from what these AI CEOs have

been hyping and trying to sell everyone

on, then I would make the argument that

it's underwhelming, like it's

underperforming. It's not living up to

the hype that they keep promising. But I

would say that's now why we're seeing

this fear-mongering. It's like the next

evolution of hype. What are practical

steps people should take to be prepared?

I mean ordinary citizens me what do you

advise for ordinary citizens I think

it's it's very important you know learn

to use AI learn to understand where the

technology is going if you're not

blindsided you have a much better chance

of adapting there's some better world

you know at least in the short term at

least for now we should take it take it

bit by bit everyone learns to use AI

better and and you know that that speeds

up the adaptation he's basically coming

on here fear-mongering offering no real

solutions painting a picture that's very

bleak weekend making people have this

like AI doom. That's part of the reason

why I wanted to make this video because

when I read the comments, people are

really upset by this video and they

don't know what to do. So, I wanted to

come on here and offer a different

perspective to be skeptical of what he

is saying, how he benefits from what

he's saying. So, when asked for a

solution, he essentially says people

should learn more about AI, become more

familiar with the tools. Do you happen

to have an AI tool that I can learn

about? Do you happen to have an AI tool

that I can use that I can buy a

subscription to? Like he's literally

pitching people the solution to the

problem that he's creating. It's

interesting that he says if you're not

blindsided, you have a much better

chance of adapting. There's some better

world, at least in the short term, at

least for now. like he's really pushing

this apocalyptic bloodbath as he put it

like this narrative of fear-mongering

and scaring people and the only solution

that he is offering is for people to use

AI tools that he just so happens to

sell. And maybe he's right. Maybe me and

many other engineers are wrong. Maybe

artificial general intelligence is on

the horizon. But as of right now, I

don't see it. And again, I recognize

people are being laid off. But my

argument to that is these companies have

to lay them off. They have to buy into

the hype because so much money has been

put into this space. It's almost

becoming like the banking industry where

it's too big to fell. And again, this

puts him in a position of power, a

position of authority, a trustworthy

figure in this space that people can

lean on and trust his guidance on. So

again, this all just benefits him. It's

just a one massive sales pitch that just

so happens to be pitching fear rather

than positivity. as the other AI CEOs

have been doing. Before you buy into the

AI hype or the AI doom, question the

source, question the motive. Thanks for

spending part of your day with me. I

will see you in the next one. Have a

great day.