This post is trending in Korea because it taps into widespread anxieties about job security and the future of work amidst rapid AI adoption. The analogy to historical land rent theories resonates with concerns about wealth concentration and the potential for tech giants to become new economic "landlords."
A recent online post has sparked a heated debate in Korea, tapping into widespread anxieties about the future of work and the economic impact of artificial intelligence. The original poster (OP) posed a provocative question: If companies continue to replace internal staff with external AI services, won't all the economic value eventually flow to the AI service providers? The OP drew a striking parallel to the 18th-century differential rent theory, where all surplus value was ultimately absorbed by "landlords." This raises a critical concern: are businesses simply trading one form of labor cost for another, potentially creating a new class of powerful tech "landlords" who control the very intelligence that drives our economy? Koreans are now grappling with what this means for job security, corporate strategy, and the distribution of wealth in an AI-driven future.
🇰🇷 KOREAN REACTIONS 10
Nah, there are tons of AI services out there, and local AI is constantly improving lol. Companies might just become self-sufficient instead of getting sucked dry by those 'landlords'.
Apparently, China is even giving away local AI for free, almost like short-selling the big AI companies. I think eventually, the money will go more to hardware and energy companies than AI companies, as intelligence gets cheaper. For now, short-term subscriptions to cost-effective AI seem like the smart move.
I heard that token costs are actually getting so high that it's becoming cheaper to hire people again... I even saw a meme about someone getting rehired by their old company with a higher salary after being laid off.
As time goes on, tech will advance, and token prices will drop, while performance improves. Labor costs, however, can't be lowered. It's just a matter of when, but that crossover point is definitely coming.
Humans can be held accountable for their performance, but AI can't. So, ultimately, we'll revert back to needing people.
It's not about cutting *everyone*. It's about 5 people doing the work of 10. You still need a minimum staff for development, handling issues, and customer service – AI isn't going to handle complex business client interactions.
From a company's perspective, it's all about cost vs. revenue. There's no reason to use AI if it's not cheaper than human labor. Unless it's a one-person company, a certain percentage of employees will always be necessary.
I went to a conference once, and someone from Google said, 'We're more like a company laying highways than making cars.' YouTube was confusing at first, but now it's essential. Americans seem to have that 'Wild West' mindset – go to empty land, develop it, lay roads, and then charge tolls. It feels like a 'chicken game' among AI companies, a battle of who can last the longest.
This is similar to what happened with platform services, like delivery apps. They outsourced jobs that used to be direct employment. But once they became monopolies, costs went up, and now everyone's just stuck.
AI is in a transitional phase. Eventually, an optimal ratio of labor cost to AI usage will emerge. And with AI making it easier to start businesses, competition is only going to get fiercer.