OpenAI will also introduce a new certification program in connection with its “OpenAI Academy.”
Category: employment
Dr. Roman Yampolskiy: These Are The Only 5 Jobs That Will Remain In 2030!
WARNING: AI could end humanity, and we’re completely unprepared. Dr. Roman Yampolskiy reveals how AI will take 99% of jobs, why Sam Altman is ignoring safety, and how we’re heading toward global collapse…or even World War III.
Dr. Roman Yampolskiy is a leading voice in AI safety and a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering. He coined the term “AI safety” in 2010 and has published over 100 papers on the dangers of AI. He is also the author of books such as, ‘Considerations on the AI Endgame: Ethics, Risks and Computational Frameworks’
He explains:
⬛How AI could release a deadly virus.
⬛Why these 5 jobs might be the only ones left.
⬛How superintelligence will dominate humans.
⬛Why ‘superintelligence’ could trigger a global collapse by 2027
⬛How AI could be worse than nuclear weapons.
⬛Why we’re almost certainly living in a simulation.
00:00 Intro.
02:28 How to Stop AI From Killing Everyone.
04:35 What’s the Probability Something Goes Wrong?
04:57 How Long Have You Been Working on AI Safety?
08:15 What Is AI?
09:54 Prediction for 2027
11:38 What Jobs Will Actually Exist?
14:27 Can AI Really Take All Jobs?
18:49 What Happens When All Jobs Are Taken?
20:32 Is There a Good Argument Against AI Replacing Humans?
22:04 Prediction for 2030
23:58 What Happens by 2045?
25:37 Will We Just Find New Careers and Ways to Live?
28:51 Is Anything More Important Than AI Safety Right Now?
30:07 Can’t We Just Unplug It?
31:32 Do We Just Go With It?
37:20 What Is Most Likely to Cause Human Extinction?
39:45 No One Knows What’s Going On Inside AI
41:30 Ads.
42:32 Thoughts on OpenAI and Sam Altman.
46:24 What Will the World Look Like in 2100?
46:56 What Can Be Done About the AI Doom Narrative?
53:55 Should People Be Protesting?
56:10 Are We Living in a Simulation?
1:01:45 How Certain Are You We’re in a Simulation?
1:07:45 Can We Live Forever?
1:12:20 Bitcoin.
1:14:03 What Should I Do Differently After This Conversation?
1:15:07 Are You Religious?
1:17:11 Do These Conversations Make People Feel Good?
1:20:10 What Do Your Strongest Critics Say?
1:21:36 Closing Statements.
1:22:08 If You Had One Button, What Would You Pick?
1:23:36 Are We Moving Toward Mass Unemployment?
1:24:37 Most Important Characteristics.
Follow Dr Roman:
X — https://bit.ly/41C7f70
Google Scholar — https://bit.ly/4gaGE72
You can purchase Dr Roman’s book, ‘Considerations on the AI Endgame: Ethics, Risks and Computational Frameworks’, here: https://amzn.to/4g4Jpa5
HUGE: Elon’s “Macrohard” AI — His CRAZIEST Idea Ever
Questions to inspire discussion.
Industry Disruption.
🏢 Q: How might traditional companies be affected by AI simulations? A: Traditional firms like Microsoft could see their valuation drop by 50% if undercut by AI clones, while the tech industry may experience millions of jobs vanishing, potentially leading to recessions or increased inequality.
🤖 Q: What is the potential scale of AI company simulations? A: AI-simulated companies like “Macrohard” could become real entities, operating at a fraction of the cost of traditional companies and disrupting markets 10 times faster and bigger than the internet’s impact on retail.
Regulatory Landscape.
📊 Q: How might governments respond to AI-simulated companies? A: Governments may implement regulations on AI companies to slow innovation, potentially creating monopolies that regulators would later need to break up, further disrupting markets.
The AI revolution: facilitator or terminator?
We’ve all heard the arguments – “AI will supercharge the economy!” versus “No, AI is going to steal all our jobs!” The reality lies somewhere in between. Generative AI1 is a powerful tool that will boost productivity, but it won’t trigger mass unemployment overnight, and it certainly isn’t Skynet (if you know, you know). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that “AI will affect almost 40% of jobs around the world, replacing some and complementing others”. In practice, that means a large portion of workers will see some tasks automated by AI, but not necessarily lose their entire job. However, even jobs heavily exposed to AI still require human-only inputs and oversight: AI might draft a report, but you’ll still need someone to fine-tune the ideas and make the decisions.
From an economic perspective, AI will undoubtedly be a game changer. Nobel laureate Michael Spence wrote in September 2024 that AI “has the potential not only to reverse the downward productivity trend, but over time to produce a major sustained surge in productivity.” In other words, AI could usher in a new era of faster growth by enabling more output from the same labour and capital. Crucially, AI often works best in collaboration with existing worker skillsets; in most industries AI has the potential to handle repetitive or time-consuming work (like basic coding or form-filling), letting people concentrate on higher-value-add aspects. In short, AI can raise output per worker without making workers redundant en masse. This, in turn, has the potential to raise GDP over time; if this occurs in a non-inflationary environment it could outpace the growth in US debt for example.
Some jobs will benefit more than others. Knowledge workers who harness AI – e.g. an analyst using AI to sift data – can become far more productive (and valuable). New roles (AI auditors, prompt engineers) are already emerging. Conversely, jobs heavy on routine information processing are already under pressure. The job of a translator is often cited as the most at risk; for example, today’s AI can already handle c.98% of a translator’s typical tasks, and is gradually conquering more technically challenging real-time translation.
Microsoft Releases List of Jobs Most and Least Likely to Be Replaced by AI
Researchers at Microsoft tried to determine which precise jobs are most and least likely to be replaced by generative AI — and the results are bad news for anyone currently enjoying the perks of a cushy desk job.
As detailed in a yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper, the Microsoft team analyzed a “dataset of 200k anonymized and privacy-scrubbed conversations between users and Microsoft Bing Copilot,” and found that the occupations most likely to be made obsolete by the tech involve “providing information and assistance, writing, teaching, and advising.”
The team used the data to come up with an “AI applicability score,” an effort to quantify just how vulnerable each given occupation is, taking into consideration how often AI is already being used there and how successful those efforts have been.
Universal basic income: This is the proposed solution for when artificial general intelligence (AGI) takes over
AI experts warn that AI could eliminate millions of jobs, and advocates for Universal Basic Income believe such a system might become necessary.
SRS Lessens Rate of Neurologic Death vs WBRT in SCLC and Brain Metastases
In all patients, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.2 months (95% CI, 8.5−12.2); there was a total of 20 neurologic deaths compared with 64 non-neurologic deaths. Between the 2 reviewers, agreement was 98% regarding neurologic death and non-neurologic death, with disagreement requiring a tie occurring in 2%.
The 1-year and 2-year neurologic death incidence was 11.0% (95% CI, 5.8%-18.1%) and 20.3% (95% CI, 12.7%-29.1%), respectively. The trial investigators noted that the historical incidence of neurologic death with WBRT was 17.5% at 1 year and 35.2% at 2 years. The 1-year and 2-year incidence of non-neurologic death was 48.0% (95% CI, 37.9%-57.4%) and 61.7% (95% CI, 50.8%-70.8%).
Via the Fine and Gray regression analysis, age, number of brain metastases, size of largest brain metastases, presence of neurologic symptoms, presence of distant extracranial metastases, and employment of neurological resection before enrollment were not associated with neurological death (P .05 in all cases).
New brain metastases were developed by 61.0% of patients, with a 1-year estimate of 59.0% (95% CI, 48.6%-68.0%); at least 1 course of salvage stereotactic radiation was received by 39.0% of patients, with a 1-year estimate of 37.0% (95% CI, 27.5%-46.5%); WBRT was received by 22.0%, with a 1-year estimate of 21.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-29.5%); and leptomeningeal disease was observed in 9.0%, with a 1-year estimate of 7.0% (95% CI, 3.1%-13.1%).
Overall, systemic disease progression occurred in 65.0% of patients, with a 1-year estimate of 58% (95% CI, 47.6%-67.0%).
Additionally, in aggregate, at least 1 local recurrence in a metastasis treated in the study was experienced by 13.0%, with a 1-year estimate of 15.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-22.7%); the respective per-patient rates of radiographic and symptomatic necrosis were 9.0% and 5.0% in total, with 1-year estimates of 6.0% (95% CI, 2.4%-11.9%) and 3.0% (95% CI, 0.8%-7.9%), respectively.
“Despite being the historical standard, whole brain radiation might not be necessary for all patients,” stated first study author Ayal Aizer, MD, MHS, director of Central Nervous System Radiation Oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a founding member of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system, in a press release on the study.2 “Our findings demonstrate that targeted, brain-directed radiation may be a viable treatment for patients with limited brain metastases from SCLC and potentially spare them from the [adverse] effects of whole brain radiation.”