Tripped over this video of Richard Socher talking about AI:
Richard Socher says your view on AI depends on what you think your job is for.
— vitrupo (@vitrupo) April 22, 2025
If you optimize for output -- more stories, more illustrations, more healthy people -- AI is a gift.
But if your role is about getting paid by the hour, AI feels like a threat. pic.twitter.com/QluGnQg7Dw
The start of his response going something like:
If you work in an industry and you feel ownership and you feel like your point is to maximize the outputs of that industry, then you actually love AI. […] If you think that your part of being in that industry is getting paid an hourly wage, you kind of hate AI.
It is an argument of amplification. That AI amplifies the things we are already doing so we can do a lot more of it, a lot better.
The same argument from Reid Hoffman’s book Impromptu from 2023.
It’s a nice way of putting it. Not profound, just a new spin.
He gives an excellent example that really hits home:
And medicine is one good example where almost everyone in the world agrees that it’s not about more jobs in medicine, it’s about more healthy people, cheaper, faster, more efficiently, and so on.
Agreed. Push it further: we don’t need more programmers, but more programs (that solve new/specific problems for people).
The people who enjoy doing the thing can get more done. Or, do something else and “do programming” as a hobby, like Sunday painting.
What are the counter arguments?
I guess, many people want the hourly wage. They don’t care for the industry, it’s a means to an ends. Anything that disrupts this status quo is a threat. Fair enough.
Via grok3:
The counterargument to Socher’s perspective is that AI doesn’t just amplify what you do—it can fundamentally disrupt or replace roles, regardless of mindset. Critics argue:
Job Displacement: Even for those who feel ownership, AI can automate core tasks, reducing the need for human input, especially in industries like manufacturing, data analysis, or customer service. This threatens jobs, not just hours.
Unequal Benefits: AI’s productivity gains often benefit employers, shareholders, or tech elites more than workers. Even passionate workers may see diminished bargaining power or wages as AI commoditizes skills.
Skill Obsolescence: Ownership doesn’t guarantee relevance. AI can shift industry demands, making specialized skills outdated, leaving even dedicated workers struggling to adapt.
Access and Equity: Not all workers have equal access to AI tools or training. Those in lower-wage or less tech-savvy roles may be sidelined, amplifying inequality rather than individual output.
Loss of Agency: AI can reduce creative or decision-making roles to oversight tasks, making work feel less fulfilling, even for those who love their industry.
In short, critics argue AI’s impact isn’t just about mindset—structural and economic realities can make it a threat, not an enhancer, for many workers, regardless of their passion or ownership.
Here’s the full video, the snippet in the tweet is from around 42 minutes in: