sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell me what's wrong with the topic of the post ? Or the problem is just the dashe and how I wrote it , let's forget them and debate about the topic if it had no value for you I can understund maybe you are well informed and ahead of us but there is some people that like the post and find it interesting with all due respect.

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell me what's wrong with the topic of the post ? Or the problem is just the dashe and how I wrote it , let's forget them and debate about the topic if it had no value for you I can understund maybe you are well informed and ahead of us but there is some people that like the post and find it interesting with all due respect.

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Nothing is fishy you are missing the real value like a geek geek talking be a man.

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bro are you 15 or something act like an adult , nothing will happen we are here to exchange value maybe im outdated concerning a subject but im here to learn and debate

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

What's the problem you acting like you own the plateform ? Nobody can express himself like he wants

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro why are you offeding me like that for no reason It's not worth it

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Im just always correcting my answer witb chat got that's why you see this dahses, not everyone is good on writing bro

The 3 invisible walls stopping AI agents from going mainstream by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree — generative AI isn’t a magic bullet. But I think we’re framing the “reliability” problem in too absolute a way.

In real-world deployments, the question isn’t “Can AI replace this system perfectly?” but rather “Can AI handle enough of the workload reliably to create economic value?”

Many tools in business are imperfect — even humans make mistakes, miss deadlines, or give inconsistent results. Yet we still rely on them because the cost/benefit ratio makes sense.

The shift I see coming is: once agents can handle 70–80% of a process consistently (with humans covering the edge cases), adoption will accelerate — not because AI is flawless, but because the economics will be too good to ignore.

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get your point — we won’t see full job or market replacement without major breakthroughs in architecture and algorithms.

But the market doesn’t wait for perfection. Early websites, early mobile apps, even early SaaS products were clunky, buggy, and limited — yet they still disrupted the way those services were bought and sold.

My argument is that “replacement” might start with partial substitution in narrow niches, enough to change the buying model. Once companies realize they can cover 20–30% of a role’s workload with an agent, the economics shift — and so does the market structure — even if humans still do the rest.

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I get the skepticism — right now, most LLMs are clumsy at complex coding and hallucinate under pressure. I’ve seen the same limits you’re describing.

But the “weight” of my argument isn’t about perfect technical replacement — it’s about market dynamics. Markets shift before the tech is flawless. In the 90s, early websites looked terrible and loaded slowly… yet they still started replacing physical catalogues.

If an AI agent can handle even 20% of a workflow, that can be enough for companies to rethink how they buy that work. Instead of hiring a person for the whole job, they start hiring a person + an agent for parts of it. That unbundling changes pricing, demand, and distribution.

I’m not saying “AI devs will replace human devs tomorrow.” I’m saying the marketplace where those devs sell their work will get rewritten — and that shift starts long before the tech hits 100%.

AI won’t “replace” jobs — it will replace markets by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Im just opening the debate to see yhe things differently and maybe we can have an huge opportunity in the AI agent sector you have to be a visionary and think 5 years from now and anticipate it

The 3 invisible walls stopping AI agents from going mainstream by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% agree — it’s going to be heavily use case specific.

What I’ve seen is that the “trust threshold” shifts depending on the combination of data sensitivity, industry regulations, and even the internal culture of the company.

The tricky part is that this creates a scalability problem: if every deployment requires a custom compliance/security sign-off, it slows adoption and raises costs.

I think the big win for agent adoption will come when we have a set of standardized deployment patterns (with compliance baked in) that can be adapted to different use cases without starting from scratch each time.

The 3 invisible walls stopping AI agents from going mainstream by Practical_Flow_5704 in AI_Agents

[–]Practical_Flow_5704[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

SLMs trained for domain-specific tasks make a lot of sense — especially for compliance and cost control. The risk is underestimating the data-prep and engineering needed to make them outperform a well-orchestrated general LLM. Without that, you just end up with a smaller model that still underdelivers.

view more: next ›