Michael Antczak

When you listen to any conv

When you listen to any conversations about AI it's worth to keep in mind that there are two main camps: people who are process-orientated and those who are outcome-orientated. The process-orientated people are the ones who usually complain about the imperfections of the current technical approach. The outcome-orientated people are the ones who are focused on the end result and and don't really care about the technical details. So it helps me to understand the discussion and where people are coming from.

There are three ways the AI will affect the society and the jobs: Automation, Innovation and Elimination. People who are protective of the current state of their work usually focus on the Automation piece, forgetting the other two, and this is a big problem.

Lawyers think their jobs are safe because legal reasoning is hard to automate. They're right, but they're asking the wrong question. The question isn't "can AI do a lawyer's job?" It's "does society still need lawyers?" Most people don't want adversarial legal proceedings. They want fair, predictable outcomes. What if minor crimes don't go to court at all? "You did X under circumstances Y, therefore consequence Z" - a deterministic system, not a trial. No judge's discretion, no lawyer's persuasion, just algorithmic justice. Sounds dystopian? Maybe. But also: faster, cheaper, more consistent. The demand for lawyers doesn't decline, it collapses.

We think our jobs are safe because "AI can't architect complex systems." True. But what if AI makes systems so simple they don't need architecting? What if generated code is so reliable that your debugging skills become irrelevant? Elimination, not automation. That's the risk nobody's pricing in.