Very Few Jobs in the Future or Worse Due to AI

[marcus]

From https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/10/29/billionaire-bill-gates-just-issued-a-blunt-warning/
Title : Billionaire Bill Gates Just Issued a Blunt Warning About Artificial Intelligence
By Bram Berkowitz , Oct 2026

... Billionaire & Microsoft's co-founder Bill Gates has now been part of, and has seen technology rapidly change for roughly 6 decades ..

in late September, Gates said that if AI remains unregulated, it could lead to "a billion deaths," adding that "no one thinks self-regulation is enough."

Gates urged politicians and even law enforcement to start thinking "about what safeguards and monitoring look like" because he didn't think even having a "kill switch" would be enough.

Last week, Gates (said) : "My big concern (about AI) is this 20-year transition period, where they'll have winners and losers and a lot of disruption," he said.

Gates believes AI will make many jobs like telesupport and accounting vanish because AI can do these jobs faster, cheaper, and more efficiently. Blue-collar jobs face threats from humanoid robots.

"If we don't choose to massively slow down or stop, then we will have robots that can build houses, grow food, do surgery," Gates said. "And none of the things that human labor provides to the economy will be necessary for most goods and services."...

so if AI can truly do (all this), what jobs will be left for humans? How will people make money? ...

 

[Balifrog]

From https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/10/29/billionaire-bill-gates-just-issued-a-blunt-warning/
Title : Billionaire Bill Gates Just Issued a Blunt Warning About Artificial Intelligence
By Bram Berkowitz , Oct 2026

... Billionaire & Microsoft's co-founder Bill Gates has now been part of, and has seen technology rapidly change for roughly 6 decades ..

in late September, Gates said that if AI remains unregulated, it could lead to "a billion deaths," adding that "no one thinks self-regulation is enough."

Gates urged politicians and even law enforcement to start thinking "about what safeguards and monitoring look like" because he didn't think even having a "kill switch" would be enough.

Last week, Gates (said) : "My big concern (about AI) is this 20-year transition period, where they'll have winners and losers and a lot of disruption," he said.

Gates believes AI will make many jobs like telesupport and accounting vanish because AI can do these jobs faster, cheaper, and more efficiently. Blue-collar jobs face threats from humanoid robots.

"If we don't choose to massively slow down or stop, then we will have robots that can build houses, grow food, do surgery," Gates said. "And none of the things that human labor provides to the economy will be necessary for most goods and services."...

so if AI can truly do (all this), what jobs will be left for humans? How will people make money? ...

To be honest, I love this shit....
Time to head down the pub for Friday's Happy Hour ....

 

[Balifrog]

BTW, I would like to see (A.I. + quantum computing) vs Asian women's "logic" .....

 

[harryopal1]

The only rational approach for governments is to have a social liability tax. If a company takes on AI and may then dismiss employees a formula needs to be devised for a tax that will help governments to provide support for those rendered unemployable.

 

[snpark]

BTW, I would like to see (A.I. + quantum computing) vs Asian women's "logic" .....

Ok Spock lol

 

[pantaiema]

so if AI can truly do (all this), what jobs will be left for humans? How will people make money? ...

I think it’s important to point out that this statement didn’t come from Bill Gates, nor was it made by the writers.

Just look at the history of the Industrial Revolutions. Machines and automation have been taking over certain jobs for centuries, but have they actually caused long-term mass unemployment? Not really. If technology takes away some jobs, it also creates new ones. What about jobs in humanoid robot manufacturing, driverless vehicle technology, gene editing, AI chip industries, and content creation? The list goes endless

Historically, major unemployment problems are more often caused by recessions, economic depressions, wars, natural disasters such as droughts and floods, or major societal breakdowns, rather than Industrial Revolutions themselves.

Instead of simply predicting that technology will leave millions of people without jobs, why not look at the actual unemployment figures during previous Industrial Revolutions? The evidence is far more useful than speculation.

In fact, Industrial Revolutions have generally helped increase productivity, improve living standards, and make people more independent and prosperous. Of course, some jobs will disappear, and people will need to adapt. But that doesn’t mean there will be no jobs left. Technology doesn’t just replace jobs; it also creates entirely new industries and opportunities that we couldn’t even imagine before.

 

[Balifrog]

The only rational approach for governments is to have a social liability tax. If a company takes on AI and may then dismiss employees a formula needs to be devised for a tax that will help governments to provide support for those rendered unemployable.

Wrong approach.
Right approach is creating training centers and schools where people laid off can learn new skills.

 

[snpark]

Charlie and the chocolate factory.

Charlie's dad loses his job at the toothpaste factory screwing the caps onto the tubes to a machine

End of movie Charlie has a new job. Fixing the machines.


Btw if in doubt watch the Simpsons. They usually predicted it many seasons ago

 

[harryopal1]

Wrong approach.
Right approach is creating training centers and schools where people laid off can learn new skills.

Which is exactly why there is a need for a social liability tax, otherwise how will governments have the funds to put training centres etc not to mention food and basics so unemployed people don't starve while studying. But at the end of the day where will these new jobs come from when then expectation is that so many jobs will be lost to the new technology?

 

[harryopal1]

I think it’s important to point out that this statement didn’t come from Bill Gates, nor was it made by the writers.

Just look at the history of the Industrial Revolutions. Machines and automation have been taking over certain jobs for centuries, but have they actually caused long-term mass unemployment? Not really. If technology takes away some jobs, it also creates new ones. What about jobs in humanoid robot manufacturing, driverless vehicle technology, gene editing, AI chip industries, and content creation? The list goes endless

Historically, major unemployment problems are more often caused by recessions, economic depressions, wars, natural disasters such as droughts and floods, or major societal breakdowns, rather than Industrial Revolutions themselves.

Instead of simply predicting that technology will leave millions of people without jobs, why not look at the actual unemployment figures during previous Industrial Revolutions? The evidence is far more useful than speculation.

In fact, Industrial Revolutions have generally helped increase productivity, improve living standards, and make people more independent and prosperous. Of course, some jobs will disappear, and people will need to adapt. But that doesn’t mean there will be no jobs left. Technology doesn’t just replace jobs; it also creates entirely new industries and opportunities that we couldn’t even imagine before.

While ultimately this latest technological revolution may create opportunities further down the road a social liability tax may help during the catastrophic times that loom immediately ahead

 

[Balifrog]

Which is exactly why there is a need for a social liability tax, otherwise how will governments have the funds to put training centres etc not to mention food and basics so unemployed people don't starve while studying. But at the end of the day where will these new jobs come from when then expectation is that so many jobs will be lost to the new technology?

It doesn't work. France in the past made laying off people very difficult. As result employers did not offer indefinite contracts anymore, only (mainly) temporary contracts.
The problem with this being that even you have a job and income you don"t have stability.
And impossible to find a house rental or a loan...
BTW we all contribute every month to the unemployment fund (and to health care and pension)
Total cost of this social security net is 24% of your gross salary. And that is before revenue tax !

We had a tax on big fortunes in the past (make the billionaires pay) it was cancelled in 2018 when the gouvernment noticed millionaires / billionaires leaving France to settle in Belgium or Switzerland.

 

[harryopal1]

So, we just ignore the upheaval and just be careful we don't trip over the homeless sleeping in the streets?

 

[Balifrog]

So, we just ignore the upheaval and just be careful we don't trip over the homeless sleeping in the streets?

Like in L.A. ?

 

[harryopal1]

Meanwhile Australia is still committed to this absurd Aukus agreement to get, maybe, in the 30's 8 nuclear submarines at a cost of $360 billion. This is supposedly in the nation's strategic interests to defend ourselves against our biggest trading parner, China. With ever developing underwater drone technology the value of these submarines is questionable. And I would have thought a major part of our strategic national interest is to keep Australian citizens from plunging in to poverty and homelessness.

 

[marcus]

... Instead of simply predicting that technology will leave millions of people without jobs, why not look at the actual unemployment figures during previous Industrial Revolutions? ...

In my view , your "logic" is not appropriate .

Predictions like this (made by a very knowledgeable person) is very important to all Governments (and many persons) .

If he and others like him don't tell their opinions , how Governments (that normally are slow to detect any problem) will quickly prepare the necessary action(s) to minimize the problem(s) ?

Note : By the way , one of the major problems I saw in my work place was : people knowing about a problem but staying quiet/not doing anything about (failing to perform an action or duty that you are legally or morally required to do - omission) .

 

[Balifrog]

Meanwhile Australia is still committed to this absurd Aukus agreement to get, maybe, in the 30's 8 nuclear submarines at a cost of $360 billion. This is supposedly in the nation's strategic interests to defend ourselves against our biggest trading parner, China. With ever developing underwater drone technology the value of these submarines is questionable. And I would have thought a major part of our strategic national interest is to keep Australian citizens from plunging in to poverty and homelessness.

TBH, you were completely f*cked over by the US on that one...
No way UK or US will supply you NEW nuclear subs by 2030 !
And your Collin subs are between 25 and 30 years old...
Australia has always been anti nuclear. Your choice, but do you think you can train a nuclear engineer in 4 years ?
In the best case you end up with 25 year old US subs, with US crews, US maintenance team etc...
And in 2022 you paid us 830 million AUD for breach of contract...

 

[snpark]

The irony of paying billions of dollars for nuclear stealth subs that won't be delivered for 10 years that you can't even see.
Cue 2030. We already launched them last week secretly. They are on patrol somewhere
Billions saved.
When has anyone ever actually seen or USED a stealth nuclear sub anyway.

Save your money. Just pretend.
Ever seen Michael Jackson and LaToya Jackson in the same room?

 

[pantaiema]

In my view , your "logic" is not appropriate .

Predictions like this (made by a very knowledgeable person) is very important to all Governments (and many persons) .

If he and others like him don't tell their opinions , how Governments (that normally are slow to detect any problem) will quickly prepare the necessary action(s) to minimize the problem(s) ?

Note : By the way , one of the major problems I saw in my work place was : people knowing about a problem but staying quiet/not doing anything about (failing to perform an action or duty that you are legally or morally required to do - omission) .

Bill Gates’s warnings regarding the threat of uncontrollable AI and widespread job displacement are already widely known, as are discussions surrounding the regulatory power of global governments.

'if AI remains unregulated, it could lead to "a billion deaths," adding that "no one thinks self-regulation is enough
Gates urged politicians and even law enforcement to start thinking "about what safeguards and monitoring look like" because he didn't think even having a "kill switch" would be enough.

"My big concern (about AI) is this 20-year transition period, where they'll have winners and losers and a lot of disruption,"

"If we don't choose to massively slow down or stop, then we will have robots that can build houses, grow food, do surgery," Gates said. "And none of the things that human labour provides to the economy will be necessary for most goods and services."...

However, these scenarios remain purely hypothetical, IF IF IF IF, etc. The Followers of the AI debate understand that if Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) were to emerge, it could pose a threat to humanity, but they also recognise that governments retain the capacity to regulate it. A frequently cited historical precedent is how the international community restricted certain forms of gene editing to prevent dangerous biological outcomes such as a monster, Frankenstein. Dracula

Also, Bill Gates is neither a labour economist nor a human geographer. Typically, sensible governments weigh arguments from both perspectives. It is also worth remembering that anxieties regarding new technologies replacing human labour have persisted for centuries; despite continuous technological advancements, unemployment rates have not spiralled out of control.

 

[Balifrog]

'if AI remains unregulated, it could lead to "a billion deaths,"

Just that phrase shows how we should ignore him....
Complete B.S.

 

[harryopal1]

Bill Gates’s warnings regarding the threat of uncontrollable AI and widespread job displacement are already widely known, as are discussions surrounding the regulatory power of global governments.

'if AI remains unregulated, it could lead to "a billion deaths," adding that "no one thinks self-regulation is enough
Gates urged politicians and even law enforcement to start thinking "about what safeguards and monitoring look like" because he didn't think even having a "kill switch" would be enough.

"My big concern (about AI) is this 20-year transition period, where they'll have winners and losers and a lot of disruption,"

"If we don't choose to massively slow down or stop, then we will have robots that can build houses, grow food, do surgery," Gates said. "And none of the things that human labour provides to the economy will be necessary for most goods and services."...

However, these scenarios remain purely hypothetical, IF IF IF IF, etc. The Followers of the AI debate understand that if Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) were to emerge, it could pose a threat to humanity, but they also recognise that governments retain the capacity to regulate it. A frequently cited historical precedent is how the international community restricted certain forms of gene editing to prevent dangerous biological outcomes such as a monster, Frankenstein. Dracula

Also, Bill Gates is neither a labour economist nor a human geographer. Typically, sensible governments weigh arguments from both perspectives. It is also worth remembering that anxieties regarding new technologies replacing human labour have persisted for centuries; despite continuous technological advancements, unemployment rates have not spiralled out of control.

Pantaima noted, " despite continuous technological advancements, unemployment rates have not spiralled out of control."

It is easy to be blase about future unemployment for those of us sheltered from the impact. Very different for those who lose their jobs and cannot then find further employment. , "During the First Industrial Revolution in Britain, the period of 1839–1842 was marked as the worst industrial slump and peak of economic distress, driven by overproduction, foreign bank failures, protective tariffs, and rising food prices. [1]

• Working-class disposable income dropped sharply by 21% per capita from 1836 to 1842, accompanied by widespread short-time work, wage cuts of up to 30%, and severe destitution. [1]
• • Earlier severe technological displacement occurred around 1770 onward, when mechanized spinning machinery replaced traditional hand-spinners who had previously accounted for roughly 8% of the British population, leading to prolonged underemployment that stretched into the 1830s. [1, 2]
  • In later industrial depressions (such as in the United States during the 1870s and 1890s), national unemployment rates exceeded 16% of the labor force during major contractions like 1873–1878 and 1893–1897. [1]