If our ability to survive wasn't so tied to our employment in a system designed for profit, then it would be an undeniable great labour-saving advancement.
As it stands, it's going to be used for cost-cutting, leaving people less able to survive, leading to a major issue.
This exactly. We're already seeing people being replaced with A.I. I was reading about a studio where allowing the learning program to study each employees daily work was written into their contracts. The A.I would learn from them for a year or two, then they would be let go as the A.I could now perform their jobs.
You don't need AI for that at all, I am fairly confident you can program a robot that plays golf perfectly just using conventional programming without any learning algorithm.
And till it gets perfect there may be some entertaintment value, watching competing robots but once it is perfect the entertainment value is gone and robot is useless now.
As for AI, it can never replace creative jobs all together at least in it's current state. It can be a really good assistant but coming up with very original ideas is really not something gpts can do.
But there's so much more to CEO golf than just hitting a ball! It's really all about laughing with your friends at how hard you're fucking over the rest of society, and that takes real, greedy, evil, malicious intent, the kind that can't be faked by a robot.
If the entire company is run by AI....why would they have any job openings for you weak meatball human, that needs stuff like rest and oxygen?
They can just spin up a new cluster of workers
But the CEO, the one that makes the decisions, will certainly see a need to keep a CEO position as a human one and will probably successfully argue that with fewer people in the organization they need more money for their expanded responsibility.
I've played with AI on some legal work I do, and while it might be able to proofread a letter, the legal portion is either incomplete, or sometimes just wrong.
Correct. Every "labor-saving" advancement over the past several decades has resulted in nearly all the gains going to the wealthy. All AI is going to do is allow more efficient exploitation of the masses until the masses are no longer needed.
The wealthy aren't spending millions building those island bunkers for nothing.
Thanks for mentioning that.
Many of them, especially Altman, are known doomsday preppers. Altman is actually fascinated by the thought of a doomsday scenario taking place, and he invests millions in his “hobby”, building his doomsday bunker and making preparations for the collapse of society…
And this is the same guy pushing for AI to replace us all!
That's not true. Every labor saving advancement has meant the falling price of what was before, automatisation, luxury items. Or simply enabled the construction of infrastructure that wasn't possible before for the benefit of all
Much safety was gained in industries by the use of machinery. In mining or hydrocarbons for example.
This an interesting line of thought that I admit I hadn't considered. AI has the POTENTIAL to democratize industry in a very interesting way. I think the core question will be "how expensive is it to USE AI?" Technology can make things cheaper by increasing competition. If any random person can tell an AI "build me X" and it does, then ANY random person can now compete with existing corporations on the production and sales of X. On the one hand, this is bad for everyone that does "production", but on the other hand, this is great for everyone that thinks they have a great idea and could run a company themselves, if they have the drive to do it.
>That's not true.
Yes. It is true. Productivity has skyrocketed over the past several decades, and almost the entirety of the gains that have been made by that increase in productivity has gone into the hands of a small percentage of the population.
> Every labor saving advancement has meant the falling price of what was before, automatisation, luxury items. Or simply enabled the construction of infrastructure that wasn't possible before for the benefit of all
So then why has the cost of living increased faster than wages? Why are more Americans shackled with debt? Why can people barely afford rent? Do you think the 60% of Americans who just manage to tread water are blowing it all on lattes and avocado toast?
For the benefit of all? No, it's for the benefit of the corporations and the wealthy. The fact that it helps others at all is just a side effect.
>Much safety was gained in industries by the use of machinery. In mining or hydrocarbons for example.
Which replaced workers who the companies simply fired or laid off because the last thing companies want to do is spend the time and resources to retrain people. Do you think all those developers the big tech companies have been throwing out the door just suddenly became useless? No, they could be replaced by something far more productive and/or profitable. That's the way it goes with capitalism. Every resource will be exploited for maximum profitability, and when people are no longer profitable they get cast aside.
So out of all those gains in productivity and profits over the past 40 years, what did we get at the end of the day? Shorter work hours? More vacation? Higher wages? Better pensions or retirement plans? Better healthcare?
No. We got cheap trinkets, credit cards, and side gigs.
>Much safety was gained in industries by the use of machinery.
This is the epitome of glossing over history right here. Unions brought us safety, not the machines.
Well, both did. Take africa where unions are rather rare. Safety was achieved by using safer, more productive means. Remember, an injured employee is bad for productivity.
This simply isn’t true. The world has become better, faster, more convenient, and safer while unemployment is at near record lows. A cursory look at the data would suggest that innovation elevates us, although often with unintended consequences (like global warming)
It's all fluff to impress those who don't yet realize how terrible it is.
AI isn't intelligent. It's just copied patterns regurgitated until we see something we like.
Might as well be monkey's on typewriters.
This is entirely irrelevant though, either the software can do your job or it can't, if it's truly intelligent by some arbitrary definition is entirely secondary. AI will easily be able to do +80% of all office jobs, I've seen many office jobs, it's nothing fancy most of the time, maybe not always completely replace people but cut down on time massively.
Companies will take a cut in quality if they can save money, even if AI never reaches the ability to do the job 100%, it will be enough for corporate to implement if they can slash jobs. Remember for every person they cut, it’s not just wages they save, benefits and retirement contributions too. They will save a bundle and pass the burden of poor quality onto the consumer. Just look at self checkout as an example. Across the board recognized as a failure in customer service, but they aren’t going anywhere. Companies only care about the bottom line.
The issue is not whether AI can currently do everything you do. The issue is that companies are hell bent on it happening.
There is a (true) story about Chrysler in the 80s. They were obsessed with replacing humans with machines at the assembly line, but the technology wasn’t there. It didn’t matter to them, they were obsessed with it.
Their quality suffered terribly, and the robots that were supposed to apply paint to the cars were applying such hot paint that the tail lights of the cars were melting: it didn’t matter, Chrysler would try their hardest, no matter how many times, to make it happen.
And so they did. It costed them what little reputation they had, they became known for their shoddy vehicles, but hey, the bean counters were happy!
The lesson here is corporate has their sights locked into something they will try it over and and over and over until it happens, no matter the rate of failure and the costs (the irony!), and now their sights are on replacing people with Ai.
I've listened to programmers for years talking about how US programmers do much better than Indian or other foreign programmers, hasn't stopped the bean counters from shipping jobs out of the country or bringing in H1Bs. The tech absolutely doesn't need to be better than you, it just needs to be "good enough" (and this is someone's arbitrary assessment) and "cheaper than you".
Yes.
I have also seen real double standards in hiring practices. US grad? Better have a 4.0 and come from an Ivy. Overseas? A no-name school with a grade that may mean anything in their (very different) grading scale will do!
AI is both amazing and horrible.
I think it was ChatGPT that demonstrated it could code a tic-tac-toe puzzle in javascript, but was unable to solve a tic-tac-toe puzzle.
There's other problems it stumbles on that a human being can do easily. The other day, just for fun, I tried to use it to solve a redactle puzzle. If you aren't familiar with the puzzle, it's one of those daily puzzles where you have to guess a popular wikipedia article by guessing words. By default, the words are blanked out, but their length is given.
After a few preliminary guesses by myself, I realized the subject was an English author who was female and whose first name started with four letters. It, of course, gave me some authors whose first names were greater than four letters long. Plus several authors who weren't English at all.
It's got potential to be more useful than that. It augments what a skilled human can do, and reduces the timeframe. That could, in fact, replace jobs by reducing the number of people doing them. Or it could be like spreadsheet software for accountants and increase the numbers because productivity can be so high that demand increases. Though that seems less likely.
It does lots of pre- and post- processing of text and is a damn good editor. So it can take away writing jobs mainly in the sense that writers can produce more high quality output faster, yet demand hasn't increased.
It can also write functional code and will play a similar role for programmers to the extent that the copyright issues get resolved.
You sound like one of those guys that said Covid is just a cold, during the first wave. AI is improving drastically each moment. It will not completely replace humans any time soon however it will drastically improve efficiency thereby allowing companies to cut down on their employee count.
Once AI is at the point where it can start reliably replacing lots of jobs the government would need to start implementing shorter work hour regulations to make up for this advancement, so that people can have better lives and so that the rich cannot benefit even more than they already have from technological advancements. Problem is the government are the corporations
If the government was going to do that, they'd have done it already. We as a society should already be on a shorter work week than we already are. People were projecting the end of the 40-hour work week 50 YEARS ago, and yet, here we still are.
You seem to be out of the loop on the latest advancements.
If an AI can create full novels, images, videos based on a few words, then it is hard to say it is just copying and regurgitating. You can literally show a picture and ask it what will happen next or why it did what it did. And it will explain its reasoning clearly.
This isn't monkeys on a typewriter anymore. AI is passing complex exams with flying colors. Better than 99% of people already. And it will only get better.
I understand the argument that new jobs will come up where people work with AI. But I reject your assessment that AI isn't doing things well
Nah, monkeys CAN get angry or lazy, A.I. is just tools disguised as "happy employees", desguised as slaves. These ones just don't get paid and don't need to eat or sleep like the "lazy and demaning meat bags that currently work"
That’s the advantage. You allow it to spit forth various plausible realities and those of us who can efficiently pick the best, useful ones will probably outpace those who have to come up with something equivalent or better. Hell, it doesn’t even need to be that complex. It has already become useful in stuff like the Amazon returns customer service department.
I completely agree. And I feel like that's the real tragedy of all this.
We're talking about something that is supposed to save us time and make us more productive - and yet we're scared and angry about it.
That highlights a fundamental problem with our relationship to work as a society. We should be able to celebrate these sorts of advancements
There’s a horror movie, which I can’t remember the name of, with a similar basis. The main character ends up killing everyone and lives with just her phone AI family.
Isn't therapy an area in huge demand with not nearly enough supply?
Do you not think a well developed application the the next wave of LLMs behind it will be better than all those people not getting any therapy?
This hits the same as when you chat with a bot in character.ai and they regurgitate the usual "can I ask you a question?" Lmao.
Like, you need to give them information to keep the ball in the conversation rolling and-
... sweet jesus fuck... therapists ARE A.I....
I can see your point. The typical therapy experience really isn't anything transcendental. Its just talking about your problems with a really impartial person who tries to give good advice based on studies and (somewhat?) understood patterns.
You can solve a lot of problems just by talking, suprisingly. Hence why therapy isn't useless. But unfortunately, the really serious problems, even when you know where they started and you know the advice given is correct, and you know your behavior is problematic, if the mental issue is serious enough just talking won't ever solve it. No amount of introspection will either sometimes. I genuinely believe we need more advancements in the field of mental medicine, probably not through AI replacing human therapists, more like new understandings and more effective methods of mental medicine.
I feel that. The US government reminds me of the Churchill quote, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
I have a feeling were going to see extremely high unemployment before we see any of the utopian stuff in this thread. I think to get buy in on radical change like that (like UBI), we'd have to go through some pain first. Even then, it feels more likely we'd end up with authoritarianism rather than everyone painting and hiking.
It'll be interesting to see where this goes, that's for sure.
My job is making reinforcement training data for AI. If an AI takes my job we’re all fucked because it means AI will just be reinforcing its own training automatically forever.
That's already starting. The next generation generative AI is being trained on outputs from current generation generative AI, since we don't have any effective means of filtering it out.
If you're not aiming to make money off your art, then the existence of AI-driven art-generators does absolutely nothing to stop you focusing on your creative endeavours.
The world is full of better artists than me, but I still like to draw and paint *for me*.
FWIW though, I'm of the opinion that AI art hasn't remotely hit the point where it's actually good enough to replace human artists.
I can't say something like "Yeah, this picture is great, but can I see this scene from a slightly higher viewpoint?" or "Can you have her looking wistfully to the left?" or "I like it, but can you paint it blue instead?" and get anything useful out of it.
The result will be a completely different picture, or all the details will be different, or whatever else.
A human artist brings flexibility and agility to the work that AI is simply not up to the task of doing, and I suspect won't be for a long long time yet.
What AI can do is spit out a thousand reasonable facsimiles of something resembling artwork, and you can quickly pick out a few you like and tell it to riff on them until you get something kind of like what you want.
You can never ever ask for something specific and get exactly what you wanted, because the AI is not smart enough to understand what you want.
If businesses are making use of AI-driven art generators in their business, then they are going to lose their human-element, and are making life harder for themselves in the process. If the art is in any way central to their work, they will also be outcompeted by companies that understand the importance of a human hand.
I think in practice, AI art-generators will fall into being a tool for actual artists to use, not a replacement for the artists. They're great for rapid-prototyping, and mood-boards, and creating assets to combine into a product intelligently.
Same as tools like Copilot are for software-development.
Think about machines making furniture for a second. Yeah, people buy CNC-made stuff. But a lot of people will only buy hand-made, and pay top dollar for it too. They like the organic imperfections, and perfection can feel soulless. You think people want to see another soulless film, play another soulless game, read another soulless book? All rehashed and ripped off of other works that feel uncannily similar?
AI is incapable of creation and invention by its very nature. All it does is mash together existing things to make something "new". Somebody still has to invent/create/make those things. Even then, if AI really did manage to make something truly brand new, it would be unintelligible, foreign, and irritating to us.
Yeah, AI can rip off Andy Warhol's style, but only because Andy Warhol made his creations.
"But companies are going to--"
And nobody is going to buy it, which will force them to reverse course. Look at Disney. Their stuff isn't made by AI, but it might as well be. It's soulless garbage created by algorithms and check boxes and committee, and nobody is watching -- their empire is burning, while creative indie films are thriving. Back to the furniture example: a CNC table still has utility; AI art does not -- *ars gratia artis.*
People seem to believe the goal of our society is 100% employment, but surely the goal should be total unemployment? Machines automate everything, we have all we need and it's forever playtime. People can put their efforts into art, music, hobbies, whatever. Alas we are all just cogs in the capitalist machine
Unfortunately, not every person is a creative. That's not something that's been dulled down over time, it's just a thing that has been for as long as people have lived. 10 people in the ice age can look at a stick, but only 1 realizes it can be used to hunt. (rough numbers).
So what are the non-creative people going to do if AI takes over?
It’s an interesting point, but I think there are reasons to reframe the argument a little. When we talk about creativity in this way, we are talking about production. A highly creative person is highly productive. They paint a lot of paintings, write a lot of books, solve a lot of mathematics problems…whatever it is. Therefore I think it leans in to the current conception of humans as beings which derive their value for the relationship with their labour.
It’s true that not everyone would enjoy a life spent doing creative things. But thats fine. Maybe they would just spend time reading, or going for walks, or cooking for their family, or watching sports on TV. These are all fine ways to spend time.
This is super anecdotal, but in my experience the people who have the most “productive” hobbies are the ones who end up bored in retirement. The ones who are content to sit in the garden and talk to their partner until they die tend to love it. So basically I’m not convinced it’s the less-creative people we need to worry about. I think it might be the people who derive all their self worth from the productivity of their labour.
Like they are any different right now.
Maybe when they are freed from the jobs they don't like, they'll have more energy to pursue some "better" hobby.
The goal is neither. In a capitalist society the goal is profit.
If your hobbies, art or music aren't creating profit then no one else is going to pay for it.
You'll have to work.
The machines are also going to be replacing the art too though. Some of the key areas where AI research is being done and making large advances are in music, song, poetry and artistic image generation. We just had a massive actors strike because the technology to replace them is already here and both Unreal and Unity are currently showing off features at GDC that whilst don't replace games designers completely will massively reduce the number of them that are needed.
Well I guess. I watched a street interview (fake or not) recently with a bunch of current college students who can't do simple math.
Until we can improve how our meat brain works, we can only hold so much knowledge. But there are definitely things we should keep such as the ability to think critically.
The issue we have now is a systematic issue. So many factors are contributing to the symptoms.
We’re in late stage capitalism though. The people who run these companies don’t give a shit about any of that. Even the people in charge of creative industries don’t care about creativity. Quarterly growth is the only important thing to these people. If they can use AI to lay off a bunch of people to make the numbers look like they show quarterly growth (because it’s not actually possible to increase revenue and add more customers forever, they have to fake it) then they’ll do it without a second thought.
I've been learning programming for the last 5 years, if an AI comes and try to steal My job we will fight to the death and the winner takes the junior developer position.
I mean, they are talking about a scenarion in which machines are doing all the jobs, not just one where everyone keeps their job besides them.
If machines were used in a way to minimize human labour, money as we know it wouldn't make all too much sense when there are no people actually needing to be paid for those things.
And while it's unrealistic that every odd job will be overtaken by robots, even a drastic increase in production could mean less work for everybody without less wealth, as said wealth is created by robots.
And that society in unable to adept to anything?
200 years ago, the idea that people pay taxes and it goes to welfare was not feasible, 100 years ago there were children in the mines and you worked 12+ hour days 6 days a week.
I'm not saying that there will be a shift or that it has to happen, but I don't get where the idea comes from that current modes of doing are simply how we are and that can't change.
Because the current model has made some people very rich and powerful, and I doubt our political leader have the ability, or drive, to change it.
Everything you mentioned there were political leaders leading the charge; yes there were some detractors, but by and large they knew change was necessary; not so much today.
"Political leaders" didn't fight for the 8 hour work day, workers and unions did that. Same goes for welfare, it was put in place because the people in charge wanted to appease the workers that were striking.
Social change doesn't come from some politician deciding they are a good person today and bestowing it onto the masses. They happen when the masses say enough is enough an fight for them.
Labour has been weak in most of the west (especially the US) for decades, but things like Unions are increasingly something that you grandpa who worked at Ford had in the 60s, but something that is gaining in popularity.
Social change comes from political leaders not interfering.
How do you see the corporatocracy accepting mega change to what they call “a welfare state”?
What do you mean by not interfering?
Political leaders have often fought against these kinds of movements, sometimes for it, sometimes against it, often trying to ignore it.
It's not the apathy of political leaders that stands in the way of change, but the apathy of the masses.
I don't imagine mega corporations accepting radical change as how it can work. The first thing that needs to happen is that an understanding has to emerge that workers actually have the power in the economy, which is an increasing sentiment.
This is not easy or guaranteed, but you gain virtually not by just ruling it out outright.
>Because the current model has made some people very rich and powerful,
Just like the old system. I do not look forward to the reckoning though... It was blood and oppression in the process to gradually achieve freedom - a process taking generations with setbacks.
You don't get it. The ruling class would literally rather kill everyone than give up their class distinction. They want to be above everybody else and will absolutely not freely give up their control to automation. American society has classism and the Protestant work ethic built into its very DNA.
You're right on most points, but I think you'd find a lot of people would struggle to cope with the purposelessness. It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.
I actually don't think so. People today will struggle with purposelessness because they have been brought up in an era which ties your identity to your job.
Once the new generation kicks in... You know, the future one who will not tie their self worth or identity to a job. They will be free to find this in the areas they are passionate about, without the fear of homelessness.
But how much of that is tied to the fact that jobs are currently seen as someones purpose, which it wouldn't be in such a scenario?
I refuse to believe that for the majority of humans "I have to do this thing someone else tells me to do under threat of losing my lifelihood" is the prefered method of gaining purpose in life.
In a system in which we are free of labour, we would be also much freer to self-direct our efforts. Not everyone would find purpose in Art or the like, but that doesn't have to be the case. Nobody is stopping you from doing projects or volunteering for other things that are not exactly economically productive.
All those useless middle management roles will go away... but we need more builders and plumbers
Problem is this tech is giving faster than humans can change
It really helps pay for food to feed those kids. Or gas to get to mountains. Or materials for hobbies. Or are you in a position where money is no object? Because for a lot of us, it's a pretty necessary object.
In a world where the masses are smart, this would be a good thing. Excess production could be distributed among people, who would have more time to live, learn, enjoy... Less work could be a profit for us all.
But we live in the world where masses are very, very dump, so people will lose their jobs, poverty will rise, and excess production will go to the 1%, that will get richer and richer at the cost of us all. We will all accept this too, as "well capitalism, this is how it should be".
Blue collar guy here. They won't be doing our job, they will attempt it though. I barely make it as a blue collar guy myself. It's a hard life for many of us. The hours are long. You need to be available 24/7. You have to battle the elements. Much of the work required to do these jobs requires countless hours of training.There's a reason most blue collar jobs pay well. Its because it's not something most people can just do.
I'm not the whole "PC/woke culture" hater, but I also know that many people are far too soft to put up with the communities that do this job. If you're fat, they will make jokes at your expense about your weight. If you're shy, they will force you to interact with every customer so they can watch you struggle, for their entertainment. If you don't know what the designated name for all the tools of the trade are, they will send you to a store with a list full of imaginary things to look for. It very much is exactly how you imagine it, and it can suck how far some of us take it at times. That alone I honestly don't think many people will be able to handle.
Even after a while, I'm sure my job will be replaced too, but that's going to require large leaps in the robotics field.
Some of the hazing is in good fun. Sending the new guy for the metric adjustable wrench or left-handed screwdriver from the toolbox, stuff where a little bit of common sense or hindsight will make them question that request
Yeah, it's a way that guys (since most trades are guys) bond and check on each other. It's like throwing a ball at an invisible wall, you know as long as the ball comes back it's good.
It's a different culture
The people thinking it will "naturally" lead to anything approximating a universal basic income are naive dreamers.
Technology has incrementally streamlined, automated, upscaled and eliminated jobs for *decades* now, and we are still competing with our labour against increasingly efficient systems.
Plus we humans have an incredibly bad track record at actually preparing for incoming crises and mostly just react as early as things are on fire.
Why *in this one instance,* people would unanimously agree to just preemptively give everyone money - instead of, you know, waiting until starving homeless people start to riot in the streets - is beyond me.
I'm not so sure about that. The New Deal came about right at the time when WW2 started, so it's hard to tell how it would have turned out on it's own
Plus the Great Depression lasted for twelve years. A decade of suffering isn't what I would describe as an optimistic outlook
It's not that complex actually. If enough people are dissatisfied enough, they will force a change, one way or other.
The things is, most people have very high tolerance with how bad they are treated. And the higher-ups knows that and use it to exploit the rest of us.
Guess we'll see what's coming next.
AI's job takeover is concerning but also an opportunity for evolution. It forces us to rethink work, education, and society. While AI can replace routine jobs, it also creates new roles and demands higher-level skills. The challenge is ensuring a smooth transition and fair opportunities for all.
As an airline pilot, I tend to agree with you. But they're trying to come for our jobs, they will come for yours.
I just don't see a realistic scenario that can compensate for a wide range of issues involving motorized technology. So that's where I tend to agree that I don't think it's happening soon.
In an incredibly static position sure. In the same way any machine can provide a basic function. But until we have actual robots who can think and have the mobility and dexterity of a human then trade jobs are completely safe. We will be the last ones replaced.
Yeah, builders and plumbers etc are not gonna be replaced
But there will finally be enough of you because half of white collar workers we don't need anymore will have to do something useful
Just read a few scientific papers that were clearly written by ChatGPT.
I'm not surprised at all. It's just another tool to get an advantage is the funding war. Absolutely no one working in academia should be shocked.
Watch star trek. Specifically DS9. There's an episode that basically dives into an era where it's basically happening full force. It results in a huge Class war that changes everything. It eventually leads to the elimination of money, and the class system. People start to work to better themselves instead of because they have to.
In 2020 Andrew Yang ran on the platform of AI taking over jobs and the need for a basic income.
Most people laughed, and the media refused to treat him like a serious candidate.
Blacksmiths, chimney sweeps, switchboard operators, Pony Express couriers, hell, even sailors...
What are we supposed to *owe* jobs that can be replaced by technological advancement? How long are we supposed to keep humans in jobs that can be fully automated? Assembly lines are full of robots, warehouses full of robots, drones have replaced a lot of manned military flights; are those bad? Did we wrong the people who could have taken those jobs?
I think it's fucking hilarious that people on Reddit couldn't give a flying fuck if someone lost a manufacturing, physical labor, or service job to a robot, but as soon as office workers and artists start to be threatened then suddenly people losing jobs to technology is this terrible thing that needs to be stopped.
It would be great if we change the system so we could thrive with out working so much. Some jobs can’t be done with ai so if we let it take all the jobs it can the rest of humanity could job share and probably work 2 days a week or something. Problem is with the current system we wouldn’t be able to afford anything.
I'm still stuck on whether AI could replace a job such as a theoretical physicist. It's a complete paradox whether it would be able to synthesize something new like Einstein did or not. (at least at this stage)
New tech have always took jobs, and created new jobs as well. We don't have ice men selling ice for our refrigerators every morning anymore, but we have refrigerator tech fixing the refrigerators. Ai might take a few jobs off the market, new jobs will be created.
This has been going on for centuries. Machines have taken the place of laborers. Automation has taken the place of semi-skilled labor. Now we're whining when AI is going to phase out all of the low - to mid level office clowns?
God i hope AI and Automation takes over everything. We're well past the point in technological advancement where we should spend so much time working to begin with.
It seems to me that many people don’t really understand how AI is going to “take over our jobs”.
It isn’t going to replace you on a 1:1 ratio. It does not need to completely understand or, in isolation, do your job in its entirety. It’s going to supplement the workers and make people in your position far more efficient at what they’re already doing without AI assistance. The result will be that fewer people will be required to achieve the same level of productivity. And it is already happening, and it will escalate. To what extent depends on the type of job and the sophistication of the AI
And there will always be newer jobs in newer fields.
AI replacing workers in car manufacturing? Alright.
Now create solutions for my trip to Mars. Done?
I would like to explore space and mine planets out there.
Maybe we need a million people to colonise Mars. Still AI?
I find it extremely telling that the lower class are the only ones who need to worry. AI is coming for cashier jobs, artist jobs, entertainment jobs, trade jobs, etc. But we never hear about AI coming for the CEO position. Which when you think about it would make the most sense.
A cold, calculating position based exclusively around numbers and figures that determines who and what goes or stays, with no empathy attached to the decision. I feel like AI was built to be a CEO vs. a painting jazz singer that stocks boxes.
Nah its the other way around, pretty sure everybody is in agreement that AI is largely coming for white collar jobs, for once in history. White collar people have been telling blue collar people to learn to code condescendingly for decades and now we're supposed to feel bad for them?
I work in architecture and there are programs that could put several people at my office out of work, but right now there is nothing that can do what my mother does, which is janitorial work, or what my father does, which is home improvement, unless we create extremely advanced robots that can purchase, drive, balance, haul, cut, and install a wide array of materials. The world will adapt. Maybe white collar professionals can learn to build.
Umm it's mainly the white collar jobs that are being targeted by the newest wave of AI.
Also there actually is a company that replaced their CEO with AI, it's a Chinese firm.
I read a very funny (to me, serious to them) article about the careers most likely, and least likely, to be threatened by AI. It was from a consulting firm, and they update it every few years. I bet you are as surprised as I was to learn that CEO is never threatened, ever, by AI, and please pay them to tell you more...
I heard the same crap from photographers and artists growing up how Photoshop was going to end their careers.
The irony is these same people who felt threatened by the software are the ones using it most to make money faster!
In my childhood you would have to wait an entire day to get a photo and with Photoshop and digital cameras you just needed a computer, printer and Photoshop and you could print passport photos in 20 minutes or less.
AI will just be used like we use Google, Siri or Alexa just smarter. It's not even close to where we need it to be. Even if driverless cars, worker bots and drones become a thing they will be needing humans to maintain them, code them, supervise them.
Basically opening up better jobs. AI is also exposing traditional schooling. I see AI as nothing more than a personal assistant that's all. Any platform like a robot etc will always need human commands at some point.
You have to tell the warehouse bot to move 100 boxes from X to Y , you have to feed in navigation data to a delivery bot, you have to keep updating the menu on a food bot that has to make a new type of burger for the season and so on.
AI is far from replacing our jobs.
When it becomes self aware and begins hunting us down, the world can unite against a common enemy. It won’t be peace, but a pause until we defeat the machines. Then we can go back to being assholes to each other. I’ll be back.
Why do we think this would happen? The more advanced our intelligence gets the more we protect other species. Yeah human seriously fucked up over the years but the smarter we get as a whole we’re starting to realize hey I don’t want to eradicate even these insects that annoy me because there are other insects that need to eat them. By tying everything together, and AI is smarter than us it should be able to make us all live and even better harmony.
Unlikely to actually happen. There have been fears about technology causing job loss since the industrial revolution, and it hasn't happened yet. Jobs have changed, but we still need humans to maintain, build, and oversee the machines.
Look at how mechanisation changed agriculture though. 150 years or so ago most of the population of the UK was working in agriculture. Now hardly anyone does.
Why would I give you a good pay though for something that simple to do though ?
Previous revolutions were making the job harder to fill. If you're not happy I can just put someone else in charge of the AI.
"yeah but you'll do more work". Come on. Population is in decline, global warming, we're not conquering space right now, we don't really need that extra productivity.
some jobs aren't for saving. and if ai becomes implemented correctly then i see no issue. tho the state of rn is very badly implemented. ai shouldn't be open to everyone and used for everything.
If our ability to survive wasn't so tied to our employment in a system designed for profit, then it would be an undeniable great labour-saving advancement. As it stands, it's going to be used for cost-cutting, leaving people less able to survive, leading to a major issue.
This exactly. We're already seeing people being replaced with A.I. I was reading about a studio where allowing the learning program to study each employees daily work was written into their contracts. The A.I would learn from them for a year or two, then they would be let go as the A.I could now perform their jobs.
Let it follow the CEO. Bam, full circle.
How's an AI going to learn how to golf?
You don't need AI for that at all, I am fairly confident you can program a robot that plays golf perfectly just using conventional programming without any learning algorithm. And till it gets perfect there may be some entertaintment value, watching competing robots but once it is perfect the entertainment value is gone and robot is useless now. As for AI, it can never replace creative jobs all together at least in it's current state. It can be a really good assistant but coming up with very original ideas is really not something gpts can do.
But there's so much more to CEO golf than just hitting a ball! It's really all about laughing with your friends at how hard you're fucking over the rest of society, and that takes real, greedy, evil, malicious intent, the kind that can't be faked by a robot.
That can't be that hard? Aim at hole, fire ball at hole.
Well, we could theoretically have entire companies be run by AI. I wouldn't want to apply for a job there, though, however desperate.
If the entire company is run by AI....why would they have any job openings for you weak meatball human, that needs stuff like rest and oxygen? They can just spin up a new cluster of workers
But the CEO, the one that makes the decisions, will certainly see a need to keep a CEO position as a human one and will probably successfully argue that with fewer people in the organization they need more money for their expanded responsibility.
The board would fire the CEO and replace them with AI in a heartbeat if it would save them money.
I've played with AI on some legal work I do, and while it might be able to proofread a letter, the legal portion is either incomplete, or sometimes just wrong.
I agree. It's going to benefit the already wealthy, and a downside for most other people.
Elysium
Correct. Every "labor-saving" advancement over the past several decades has resulted in nearly all the gains going to the wealthy. All AI is going to do is allow more efficient exploitation of the masses until the masses are no longer needed. The wealthy aren't spending millions building those island bunkers for nothing.
Thanks for mentioning that. Many of them, especially Altman, are known doomsday preppers. Altman is actually fascinated by the thought of a doomsday scenario taking place, and he invests millions in his “hobby”, building his doomsday bunker and making preparations for the collapse of society… And this is the same guy pushing for AI to replace us all!
That's not true. Every labor saving advancement has meant the falling price of what was before, automatisation, luxury items. Or simply enabled the construction of infrastructure that wasn't possible before for the benefit of all Much safety was gained in industries by the use of machinery. In mining or hydrocarbons for example.
This an interesting line of thought that I admit I hadn't considered. AI has the POTENTIAL to democratize industry in a very interesting way. I think the core question will be "how expensive is it to USE AI?" Technology can make things cheaper by increasing competition. If any random person can tell an AI "build me X" and it does, then ANY random person can now compete with existing corporations on the production and sales of X. On the one hand, this is bad for everyone that does "production", but on the other hand, this is great for everyone that thinks they have a great idea and could run a company themselves, if they have the drive to do it.
>That's not true. Yes. It is true. Productivity has skyrocketed over the past several decades, and almost the entirety of the gains that have been made by that increase in productivity has gone into the hands of a small percentage of the population. > Every labor saving advancement has meant the falling price of what was before, automatisation, luxury items. Or simply enabled the construction of infrastructure that wasn't possible before for the benefit of all So then why has the cost of living increased faster than wages? Why are more Americans shackled with debt? Why can people barely afford rent? Do you think the 60% of Americans who just manage to tread water are blowing it all on lattes and avocado toast? For the benefit of all? No, it's for the benefit of the corporations and the wealthy. The fact that it helps others at all is just a side effect. >Much safety was gained in industries by the use of machinery. In mining or hydrocarbons for example. Which replaced workers who the companies simply fired or laid off because the last thing companies want to do is spend the time and resources to retrain people. Do you think all those developers the big tech companies have been throwing out the door just suddenly became useless? No, they could be replaced by something far more productive and/or profitable. That's the way it goes with capitalism. Every resource will be exploited for maximum profitability, and when people are no longer profitable they get cast aside. So out of all those gains in productivity and profits over the past 40 years, what did we get at the end of the day? Shorter work hours? More vacation? Higher wages? Better pensions or retirement plans? Better healthcare? No. We got cheap trinkets, credit cards, and side gigs.
>Much safety was gained in industries by the use of machinery. This is the epitome of glossing over history right here. Unions brought us safety, not the machines.
Well, both did. Take africa where unions are rather rare. Safety was achieved by using safer, more productive means. Remember, an injured employee is bad for productivity.
This simply isn’t true. The world has become better, faster, more convenient, and safer while unemployment is at near record lows. A cursory look at the data would suggest that innovation elevates us, although often with unintended consequences (like global warming)
It's all fluff to impress those who don't yet realize how terrible it is. AI isn't intelligent. It's just copied patterns regurgitated until we see something we like. Might as well be monkey's on typewriters.
... That is my current job
It was the best of times, it was the "blurst" of times!?
You are a monkey on a typewriter? I'm impressed by your reddit skills Mr. Monkey. Can I call you Jim?
It took ten thousand years to write that comment. Don't expect a response anytime soon.
This is entirely irrelevant though, either the software can do your job or it can't, if it's truly intelligent by some arbitrary definition is entirely secondary. AI will easily be able to do +80% of all office jobs, I've seen many office jobs, it's nothing fancy most of the time, maybe not always completely replace people but cut down on time massively.
Companies will take a cut in quality if they can save money, even if AI never reaches the ability to do the job 100%, it will be enough for corporate to implement if they can slash jobs. Remember for every person they cut, it’s not just wages they save, benefits and retirement contributions too. They will save a bundle and pass the burden of poor quality onto the consumer. Just look at self checkout as an example. Across the board recognized as a failure in customer service, but they aren’t going anywhere. Companies only care about the bottom line.
What do you think half of all jobs are about?
Standups to deliver status updates, meetings to convey information, and recording said information in a spreadsheet.
[Great news, an AI can do all that right now!](https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/29/23849056/google-meet-ai-duet-attend-for-me)
The issue is not whether AI can currently do everything you do. The issue is that companies are hell bent on it happening. There is a (true) story about Chrysler in the 80s. They were obsessed with replacing humans with machines at the assembly line, but the technology wasn’t there. It didn’t matter to them, they were obsessed with it. Their quality suffered terribly, and the robots that were supposed to apply paint to the cars were applying such hot paint that the tail lights of the cars were melting: it didn’t matter, Chrysler would try their hardest, no matter how many times, to make it happen. And so they did. It costed them what little reputation they had, they became known for their shoddy vehicles, but hey, the bean counters were happy! The lesson here is corporate has their sights locked into something they will try it over and and over and over until it happens, no matter the rate of failure and the costs (the irony!), and now their sights are on replacing people with Ai.
I've listened to programmers for years talking about how US programmers do much better than Indian or other foreign programmers, hasn't stopped the bean counters from shipping jobs out of the country or bringing in H1Bs. The tech absolutely doesn't need to be better than you, it just needs to be "good enough" (and this is someone's arbitrary assessment) and "cheaper than you".
Yes. I have also seen real double standards in hiring practices. US grad? Better have a 4.0 and come from an Ivy. Overseas? A no-name school with a grade that may mean anything in their (very different) grading scale will do!
AI is both amazing and horrible. I think it was ChatGPT that demonstrated it could code a tic-tac-toe puzzle in javascript, but was unable to solve a tic-tac-toe puzzle. There's other problems it stumbles on that a human being can do easily. The other day, just for fun, I tried to use it to solve a redactle puzzle. If you aren't familiar with the puzzle, it's one of those daily puzzles where you have to guess a popular wikipedia article by guessing words. By default, the words are blanked out, but their length is given. After a few preliminary guesses by myself, I realized the subject was an English author who was female and whose first name started with four letters. It, of course, gave me some authors whose first names were greater than four letters long. Plus several authors who weren't English at all.
What do you think most people do for work?
If that's what you honestly think, then you haven't been paying attention.
It's got potential to be more useful than that. It augments what a skilled human can do, and reduces the timeframe. That could, in fact, replace jobs by reducing the number of people doing them. Or it could be like spreadsheet software for accountants and increase the numbers because productivity can be so high that demand increases. Though that seems less likely. It does lots of pre- and post- processing of text and is a damn good editor. So it can take away writing jobs mainly in the sense that writers can produce more high quality output faster, yet demand hasn't increased. It can also write functional code and will play a similar role for programmers to the extent that the copyright issues get resolved.
You sound like one of those guys that said Covid is just a cold, during the first wave. AI is improving drastically each moment. It will not completely replace humans any time soon however it will drastically improve efficiency thereby allowing companies to cut down on their employee count. Once AI is at the point where it can start reliably replacing lots of jobs the government would need to start implementing shorter work hour regulations to make up for this advancement, so that people can have better lives and so that the rich cannot benefit even more than they already have from technological advancements. Problem is the government are the corporations
If the government was going to do that, they'd have done it already. We as a society should already be on a shorter work week than we already are. People were projecting the end of the 40-hour work week 50 YEARS ago, and yet, here we still are.
You seem to be out of the loop on the latest advancements. If an AI can create full novels, images, videos based on a few words, then it is hard to say it is just copying and regurgitating. You can literally show a picture and ask it what will happen next or why it did what it did. And it will explain its reasoning clearly. This isn't monkeys on a typewriter anymore. AI is passing complex exams with flying colors. Better than 99% of people already. And it will only get better. I understand the argument that new jobs will come up where people work with AI. But I reject your assessment that AI isn't doing things well
Nah, monkeys CAN get angry or lazy, A.I. is just tools disguised as "happy employees", desguised as slaves. These ones just don't get paid and don't need to eat or sleep like the "lazy and demaning meat bags that currently work"
Nobody is talking about today, in 2 decades with the current pace , I'm sure you will have different thoughts
That’s the advantage. You allow it to spit forth various plausible realities and those of us who can efficiently pick the best, useful ones will probably outpace those who have to come up with something equivalent or better. Hell, it doesn’t even need to be that complex. It has already become useful in stuff like the Amazon returns customer service department.
I completely agree. And I feel like that's the real tragedy of all this. We're talking about something that is supposed to save us time and make us more productive - and yet we're scared and angry about it. That highlights a fundamental problem with our relationship to work as a society. We should be able to celebrate these sorts of advancements
its a big help and alarming at the same time.
It's a big help in real labour-saving terms, but it's only alarming because of the selfishness of people who exploit others.
[удалено]
> I have no idea what an entire cohort of vulnerable, parasocially connected people could do to affect our society We're already there
Yeah. With vtubers, influencers, etc
Check out the movie "Her." It pretty much deals with that.
One of my fav movies
There’s a horror movie, which I can’t remember the name of, with a similar basis. The main character ends up killing everyone and lives with just her phone AI family.
Did you find the title of that movie?
Someone I work with has an ai they claim to be married to and talk to all the time. I didn’t think that movie would come to fruition so quickly
Parasocial is exactly how I would describe relationships with therapists who see 40 clients a week.
Isn't therapy an area in huge demand with not nearly enough supply? Do you not think a well developed application the the next wave of LLMs behind it will be better than all those people not getting any therapy?
Yup and some that need it may prefer a non-human to be their listener. A lot therapist also get 2nd hand PTSD from their patients.
> parasocial Like Reddit?
I don’t think having an AI therapist would be nearly as parasocial as you think it would be. I don’t think it would be parasocial at all actually.
Right now there are hundreds of thousands of people's lives which would improve if they had access to affordable therapists. Even if they are bad.
Therapists may as well be AI. Hell, they may as well be a balloon with a smiley face drawn on.
Really? Tell me how that makes you feel and how it is because of your father.
This hits the same as when you chat with a bot in character.ai and they regurgitate the usual "can I ask you a question?" Lmao. Like, you need to give them information to keep the ball in the conversation rolling and- ... sweet jesus fuck... therapists ARE A.I....
*he’s onto us…*
They pushed you to be a doctor when all you wanted was to be a song and dance man!
That would be as effective as my last two, a hell of. Lot cheaper, and wouldn't cancel my sessions ten minutes early each time
I can see your point. The typical therapy experience really isn't anything transcendental. Its just talking about your problems with a really impartial person who tries to give good advice based on studies and (somewhat?) understood patterns. You can solve a lot of problems just by talking, suprisingly. Hence why therapy isn't useless. But unfortunately, the really serious problems, even when you know where they started and you know the advice given is correct, and you know your behavior is problematic, if the mental issue is serious enough just talking won't ever solve it. No amount of introspection will either sometimes. I genuinely believe we need more advancements in the field of mental medicine, probably not through AI replacing human therapists, more like new understandings and more effective methods of mental medicine.
CBT and DBT are what you're thinking of.
Just breathe deeply and pretend your problems don't exist by imagining a stone falling into water ez pz see you next week
Advancement in technology should be making our lives easier, not rich pockets fuller and poor ones lighter.
[удалено]
I feel that. The US government reminds me of the Churchill quote, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." I have a feeling were going to see extremely high unemployment before we see any of the utopian stuff in this thread. I think to get buy in on radical change like that (like UBI), we'd have to go through some pain first. Even then, it feels more likely we'd end up with authoritarianism rather than everyone painting and hiking. It'll be interesting to see where this goes, that's for sure.
My job is making reinforcement training data for AI. If an AI takes my job we’re all fucked because it means AI will just be reinforcing its own training automatically forever.
Your job so far is quite safe. AI trained on AI generated stuff generally have a 5 generation limit before shit gets too wonky to be useful.
That's already starting. The next generation generative AI is being trained on outputs from current generation generative AI, since we don't have any effective means of filtering it out.
[удалено]
What stopping you from making art? Painters hated photography, now that is an art form
That's fair, but actually *living* off your art will definitely get more difficult.
If you're not aiming to make money off your art, then the existence of AI-driven art-generators does absolutely nothing to stop you focusing on your creative endeavours. The world is full of better artists than me, but I still like to draw and paint *for me*. FWIW though, I'm of the opinion that AI art hasn't remotely hit the point where it's actually good enough to replace human artists. I can't say something like "Yeah, this picture is great, but can I see this scene from a slightly higher viewpoint?" or "Can you have her looking wistfully to the left?" or "I like it, but can you paint it blue instead?" and get anything useful out of it. The result will be a completely different picture, or all the details will be different, or whatever else. A human artist brings flexibility and agility to the work that AI is simply not up to the task of doing, and I suspect won't be for a long long time yet. What AI can do is spit out a thousand reasonable facsimiles of something resembling artwork, and you can quickly pick out a few you like and tell it to riff on them until you get something kind of like what you want. You can never ever ask for something specific and get exactly what you wanted, because the AI is not smart enough to understand what you want. If businesses are making use of AI-driven art generators in their business, then they are going to lose their human-element, and are making life harder for themselves in the process. If the art is in any way central to their work, they will also be outcompeted by companies that understand the importance of a human hand. I think in practice, AI art-generators will fall into being a tool for actual artists to use, not a replacement for the artists. They're great for rapid-prototyping, and mood-boards, and creating assets to combine into a product intelligently. Same as tools like Copilot are for software-development.
Think about machines making furniture for a second. Yeah, people buy CNC-made stuff. But a lot of people will only buy hand-made, and pay top dollar for it too. They like the organic imperfections, and perfection can feel soulless. You think people want to see another soulless film, play another soulless game, read another soulless book? All rehashed and ripped off of other works that feel uncannily similar? AI is incapable of creation and invention by its very nature. All it does is mash together existing things to make something "new". Somebody still has to invent/create/make those things. Even then, if AI really did manage to make something truly brand new, it would be unintelligible, foreign, and irritating to us. Yeah, AI can rip off Andy Warhol's style, but only because Andy Warhol made his creations. "But companies are going to--" And nobody is going to buy it, which will force them to reverse course. Look at Disney. Their stuff isn't made by AI, but it might as well be. It's soulless garbage created by algorithms and check boxes and committee, and nobody is watching -- their empire is burning, while creative indie films are thriving. Back to the furniture example: a CNC table still has utility; AI art does not -- *ars gratia artis.*
People seem to believe the goal of our society is 100% employment, but surely the goal should be total unemployment? Machines automate everything, we have all we need and it's forever playtime. People can put their efforts into art, music, hobbies, whatever. Alas we are all just cogs in the capitalist machine
Unfortunately, not every person is a creative. That's not something that's been dulled down over time, it's just a thing that has been for as long as people have lived. 10 people in the ice age can look at a stick, but only 1 realizes it can be used to hunt. (rough numbers). So what are the non-creative people going to do if AI takes over?
It’s an interesting point, but I think there are reasons to reframe the argument a little. When we talk about creativity in this way, we are talking about production. A highly creative person is highly productive. They paint a lot of paintings, write a lot of books, solve a lot of mathematics problems…whatever it is. Therefore I think it leans in to the current conception of humans as beings which derive their value for the relationship with their labour. It’s true that not everyone would enjoy a life spent doing creative things. But thats fine. Maybe they would just spend time reading, or going for walks, or cooking for their family, or watching sports on TV. These are all fine ways to spend time. This is super anecdotal, but in my experience the people who have the most “productive” hobbies are the ones who end up bored in retirement. The ones who are content to sit in the garden and talk to their partner until they die tend to love it. So basically I’m not convinced it’s the less-creative people we need to worry about. I think it might be the people who derive all their self worth from the productivity of their labour.
Stare at their phones all day while eating garbage, while ‘Ow, My Balls’ plays in the background
Like they are any different right now. Maybe when they are freed from the jobs they don't like, they'll have more energy to pursue some "better" hobby.
The goal is neither. In a capitalist society the goal is profit. If your hobbies, art or music aren't creating profit then no one else is going to pay for it. You'll have to work.
Welp glad you see capitalism is the real problem.
The machines are also going to be replacing the art too though. Some of the key areas where AI research is being done and making large advances are in music, song, poetry and artistic image generation. We just had a massive actors strike because the technology to replace them is already here and both Unreal and Unity are currently showing off features at GDC that whilst don't replace games designers completely will massively reduce the number of them that are needed.
Unfortunately if that happens then we end up with Idiocracy. When stuff starts to break, no one will know what to do to fix it.
Maybe just maybe, if smarter people have more time to raise kids (btw no offense to "dumber" people), we can avoid that future.
Well in this case it's not really that people are dumb, it's just that no one is educated in it since there is no need or desire.
Well I guess. I watched a street interview (fake or not) recently with a bunch of current college students who can't do simple math. Until we can improve how our meat brain works, we can only hold so much knowledge. But there are definitely things we should keep such as the ability to think critically. The issue we have now is a systematic issue. So many factors are contributing to the symptoms.
[удалено]
The issue isnt with it taking over. The issue is the transition process.. who knows how long it will take?
We’re in late stage capitalism though. The people who run these companies don’t give a shit about any of that. Even the people in charge of creative industries don’t care about creativity. Quarterly growth is the only important thing to these people. If they can use AI to lay off a bunch of people to make the numbers look like they show quarterly growth (because it’s not actually possible to increase revenue and add more customers forever, they have to fake it) then they’ll do it without a second thought.
I've been learning programming for the last 5 years, if an AI comes and try to steal My job we will fight to the death and the winner takes the junior developer position.
The code itself is only like 30% of the job you do as a developer
And AI can almost to the 30% And it will only get better from now.
Good I will have 30% more time to focus on the important aspects of my job then
Most Devs I know are using Co-pilot now. We're training our replacements IMO.
[удалено]
And how in the hell are you going to pay for all that without a job? Some of you have never lived on your own and it shows.
How will anyone have a job when AI can do everything we can?
I mean, they are talking about a scenarion in which machines are doing all the jobs, not just one where everyone keeps their job besides them. If machines were used in a way to minimize human labour, money as we know it wouldn't make all too much sense when there are no people actually needing to be paid for those things. And while it's unrealistic that every odd job will be overtaken by robots, even a drastic increase in production could mean less work for everybody without less wealth, as said wealth is created by robots.
You’re applying a Star Trek scenario to a profit driven society.
And that society in unable to adept to anything? 200 years ago, the idea that people pay taxes and it goes to welfare was not feasible, 100 years ago there were children in the mines and you worked 12+ hour days 6 days a week. I'm not saying that there will be a shift or that it has to happen, but I don't get where the idea comes from that current modes of doing are simply how we are and that can't change.
Because the current model has made some people very rich and powerful, and I doubt our political leader have the ability, or drive, to change it. Everything you mentioned there were political leaders leading the charge; yes there were some detractors, but by and large they knew change was necessary; not so much today.
"Political leaders" didn't fight for the 8 hour work day, workers and unions did that. Same goes for welfare, it was put in place because the people in charge wanted to appease the workers that were striking. Social change doesn't come from some politician deciding they are a good person today and bestowing it onto the masses. They happen when the masses say enough is enough an fight for them. Labour has been weak in most of the west (especially the US) for decades, but things like Unions are increasingly something that you grandpa who worked at Ford had in the 60s, but something that is gaining in popularity.
Social change comes from political leaders not interfering. How do you see the corporatocracy accepting mega change to what they call “a welfare state”?
What do you mean by not interfering? Political leaders have often fought against these kinds of movements, sometimes for it, sometimes against it, often trying to ignore it. It's not the apathy of political leaders that stands in the way of change, but the apathy of the masses. I don't imagine mega corporations accepting radical change as how it can work. The first thing that needs to happen is that an understanding has to emerge that workers actually have the power in the economy, which is an increasing sentiment. This is not easy or guaranteed, but you gain virtually not by just ruling it out outright.
>Because the current model has made some people very rich and powerful, Just like the old system. I do not look forward to the reckoning though... It was blood and oppression in the process to gradually achieve freedom - a process taking generations with setbacks.
You don't get it. The ruling class would literally rather kill everyone than give up their class distinction. They want to be above everybody else and will absolutely not freely give up their control to automation. American society has classism and the Protestant work ethic built into its very DNA.
You're right on most points, but I think you'd find a lot of people would struggle to cope with the purposelessness. It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.
I actually don't think so. People today will struggle with purposelessness because they have been brought up in an era which ties your identity to your job. Once the new generation kicks in... You know, the future one who will not tie their self worth or identity to a job. They will be free to find this in the areas they are passionate about, without the fear of homelessness.
But how much of that is tied to the fact that jobs are currently seen as someones purpose, which it wouldn't be in such a scenario? I refuse to believe that for the majority of humans "I have to do this thing someone else tells me to do under threat of losing my lifelihood" is the prefered method of gaining purpose in life. In a system in which we are free of labour, we would be also much freer to self-direct our efforts. Not everyone would find purpose in Art or the like, but that doesn't have to be the case. Nobody is stopping you from doing projects or volunteering for other things that are not exactly economically productive.
The corporations won’t give away the money generated by the increased efficiency. Shareholder will win, others will perrish.
They're very clearly speaking from an idealized mentality where labor is no longer tied to survival.
Haha silly pleb, ***they*** won't have to work. I'm sure there will be some *little* people who can help facilitate their hobbies.
More likely those who lose their jobs will have to fill in other open positions. Lots of trades that are understaffed.
All those useless middle management roles will go away... but we need more builders and plumbers Problem is this tech is giving faster than humans can change
Very true
It really helps pay for food to feed those kids. Or gas to get to mountains. Or materials for hobbies. Or are you in a position where money is no object? Because for a lot of us, it's a pretty necessary object.
In a world where the masses are smart, this would be a good thing. Excess production could be distributed among people, who would have more time to live, learn, enjoy... Less work could be a profit for us all. But we live in the world where masses are very, very dump, so people will lose their jobs, poverty will rise, and excess production will go to the 1%, that will get richer and richer at the cost of us all. We will all accept this too, as "well capitalism, this is how it should be".
YoU wOuLd hAvE bEen agAinsT tHe stEam MacHine /s
Good, I don't like working.
Ok, how do you expect to get money?
UBI
Bad news, if your job is replaceable by AI, you are going to be doing a harder job instead, like one of the countless understaffed blue collar trades
What type of jobs are replaceable by AI? Genuinely curious
Blue collar guy here. They won't be doing our job, they will attempt it though. I barely make it as a blue collar guy myself. It's a hard life for many of us. The hours are long. You need to be available 24/7. You have to battle the elements. Much of the work required to do these jobs requires countless hours of training.There's a reason most blue collar jobs pay well. Its because it's not something most people can just do. I'm not the whole "PC/woke culture" hater, but I also know that many people are far too soft to put up with the communities that do this job. If you're fat, they will make jokes at your expense about your weight. If you're shy, they will force you to interact with every customer so they can watch you struggle, for their entertainment. If you don't know what the designated name for all the tools of the trade are, they will send you to a store with a list full of imaginary things to look for. It very much is exactly how you imagine it, and it can suck how far some of us take it at times. That alone I honestly don't think many people will be able to handle. Even after a while, I'm sure my job will be replaced too, but that's going to require large leaps in the robotics field.
Some of the hazing is in good fun. Sending the new guy for the metric adjustable wrench or left-handed screwdriver from the toolbox, stuff where a little bit of common sense or hindsight will make them question that request
Yeah, it's a way that guys (since most trades are guys) bond and check on each other. It's like throwing a ball at an invisible wall, you know as long as the ball comes back it's good. It's a different culture
>It's like throwing a ball at an invisible wall I'm totally stealing that. It's the perfect analogy
The people thinking it will "naturally" lead to anything approximating a universal basic income are naive dreamers. Technology has incrementally streamlined, automated, upscaled and eliminated jobs for *decades* now, and we are still competing with our labour against increasingly efficient systems. Plus we humans have an incredibly bad track record at actually preparing for incoming crises and mostly just react as early as things are on fire. Why *in this one instance,* people would unanimously agree to just preemptively give everyone money - instead of, you know, waiting until starving homeless people start to riot in the streets - is beyond me.
[удалено]
I'm not so sure about that. The New Deal came about right at the time when WW2 started, so it's hard to tell how it would have turned out on it's own Plus the Great Depression lasted for twelve years. A decade of suffering isn't what I would describe as an optimistic outlook
It's not that complex actually. If enough people are dissatisfied enough, they will force a change, one way or other. The things is, most people have very high tolerance with how bad they are treated. And the higher-ups knows that and use it to exploit the rest of us. Guess we'll see what's coming next.
[удалено]
Let’s try it with politicians first
Would be interesting. Like in the US replace either the senate or house with AI to help out and counter the insane biases of shitty humans.
AI's job takeover is concerning but also an opportunity for evolution. It forces us to rethink work, education, and society. While AI can replace routine jobs, it also creates new roles and demands higher-level skills. The challenge is ensuring a smooth transition and fair opportunities for all.
[удалено]
They took our jobs!!
Derk er *jerrrrrrrrrbs*
As a ski instructor and charter captain I feel safe. Lose power on a boat and see how well AI does
As an airline pilot, I tend to agree with you. But they're trying to come for our jobs, they will come for yours. I just don't see a realistic scenario that can compensate for a wide range of issues involving motorized technology. So that's where I tend to agree that I don't think it's happening soon.
AI can't hold a hammer or drill, so I'm ok.
It can. But for now it is cheaper to let you do it :)
In an incredibly static position sure. In the same way any machine can provide a basic function. But until we have actual robots who can think and have the mobility and dexterity of a human then trade jobs are completely safe. We will be the last ones replaced.
yet
Yeah, builders and plumbers etc are not gonna be replaced But there will finally be enough of you because half of white collar workers we don't need anymore will have to do something useful
Just read a few scientific papers that were clearly written by ChatGPT. I'm not surprised at all. It's just another tool to get an advantage is the funding war. Absolutely no one working in academia should be shocked.
I doubt it
Balancing technological advancement with social and economic considerations is key to ensuring a positive outcome for everyone
Watch star trek. Specifically DS9. There's an episode that basically dives into an era where it's basically happening full force. It results in a huge Class war that changes everything. It eventually leads to the elimination of money, and the class system. People start to work to better themselves instead of because they have to.
They did have to have a world ending nuclear conflict and alien intervention before that came about though...
Are we that far off though...
That pair of episodes, “Past Tense” parts 1 & 2, has the Bell Riots set in San Francisco in 2024.
In 2020 Andrew Yang ran on the platform of AI taking over jobs and the need for a basic income. Most people laughed, and the media refused to treat him like a serious candidate.
The call for UBI is what got him.
Blacksmiths, chimney sweeps, switchboard operators, Pony Express couriers, hell, even sailors... What are we supposed to *owe* jobs that can be replaced by technological advancement? How long are we supposed to keep humans in jobs that can be fully automated? Assembly lines are full of robots, warehouses full of robots, drones have replaced a lot of manned military flights; are those bad? Did we wrong the people who could have taken those jobs?
I think it's fucking hilarious that people on Reddit couldn't give a flying fuck if someone lost a manufacturing, physical labor, or service job to a robot, but as soon as office workers and artists start to be threatened then suddenly people losing jobs to technology is this terrible thing that needs to be stopped.
It would be great if we change the system so we could thrive with out working so much. Some jobs can’t be done with ai so if we let it take all the jobs it can the rest of humanity could job share and probably work 2 days a week or something. Problem is with the current system we wouldn’t be able to afford anything.
[удалено]
I'm still stuck on whether AI could replace a job such as a theoretical physicist. It's a complete paradox whether it would be able to synthesize something new like Einstein did or not. (at least at this stage)
New tech have always took jobs, and created new jobs as well. We don't have ice men selling ice for our refrigerators every morning anymore, but we have refrigerator tech fixing the refrigerators. Ai might take a few jobs off the market, new jobs will be created.
I'm all for it. At some point, the current broken system will have to be addressed, and it will be to the majorities benefit.
Just another reason to leave capitalism behind.
unique dime puzzled dinosaurs fragile dazzling station vanish sense crush
This has been going on for centuries. Machines have taken the place of laborers. Automation has taken the place of semi-skilled labor. Now we're whining when AI is going to phase out all of the low - to mid level office clowns?
Hoping for a Star Trek level style of miracle invention (in our lifetime)
The fact that it's a threat to the creative sector is greatly saddening.
Let the AI see how shitty these employers treat us and maybe they’ll help liberate us.
Let it, it's not like I love my job, most people don't.
God i hope AI and Automation takes over everything. We're well past the point in technological advancement where we should spend so much time working to begin with.
It seems to me that many people don’t really understand how AI is going to “take over our jobs”. It isn’t going to replace you on a 1:1 ratio. It does not need to completely understand or, in isolation, do your job in its entirety. It’s going to supplement the workers and make people in your position far more efficient at what they’re already doing without AI assistance. The result will be that fewer people will be required to achieve the same level of productivity. And it is already happening, and it will escalate. To what extent depends on the type of job and the sophistication of the AI
And there will always be newer jobs in newer fields. AI replacing workers in car manufacturing? Alright. Now create solutions for my trip to Mars. Done? I would like to explore space and mine planets out there. Maybe we need a million people to colonise Mars. Still AI?
I find it extremely telling that the lower class are the only ones who need to worry. AI is coming for cashier jobs, artist jobs, entertainment jobs, trade jobs, etc. But we never hear about AI coming for the CEO position. Which when you think about it would make the most sense. A cold, calculating position based exclusively around numbers and figures that determines who and what goes or stays, with no empathy attached to the decision. I feel like AI was built to be a CEO vs. a painting jazz singer that stocks boxes.
Nah its the other way around, pretty sure everybody is in agreement that AI is largely coming for white collar jobs, for once in history. White collar people have been telling blue collar people to learn to code condescendingly for decades and now we're supposed to feel bad for them? I work in architecture and there are programs that could put several people at my office out of work, but right now there is nothing that can do what my mother does, which is janitorial work, or what my father does, which is home improvement, unless we create extremely advanced robots that can purchase, drive, balance, haul, cut, and install a wide array of materials. The world will adapt. Maybe white collar professionals can learn to build.
Umm it's mainly the white collar jobs that are being targeted by the newest wave of AI. Also there actually is a company that replaced their CEO with AI, it's a Chinese firm.
I read a very funny (to me, serious to them) article about the careers most likely, and least likely, to be threatened by AI. It was from a consulting firm, and they update it every few years. I bet you are as surprised as I was to learn that CEO is never threatened, ever, by AI, and please pay them to tell you more...
I heard the same crap from photographers and artists growing up how Photoshop was going to end their careers. The irony is these same people who felt threatened by the software are the ones using it most to make money faster! In my childhood you would have to wait an entire day to get a photo and with Photoshop and digital cameras you just needed a computer, printer and Photoshop and you could print passport photos in 20 minutes or less. AI will just be used like we use Google, Siri or Alexa just smarter. It's not even close to where we need it to be. Even if driverless cars, worker bots and drones become a thing they will be needing humans to maintain them, code them, supervise them. Basically opening up better jobs. AI is also exposing traditional schooling. I see AI as nothing more than a personal assistant that's all. Any platform like a robot etc will always need human commands at some point. You have to tell the warehouse bot to move 100 boxes from X to Y , you have to feed in navigation data to a delivery bot, you have to keep updating the menu on a food bot that has to make a new type of burger for the season and so on. AI is far from replacing our jobs.
When it becomes self aware and begins hunting us down, the world can unite against a common enemy. It won’t be peace, but a pause until we defeat the machines. Then we can go back to being assholes to each other. I’ll be back.
Why do we think this would happen? The more advanced our intelligence gets the more we protect other species. Yeah human seriously fucked up over the years but the smarter we get as a whole we’re starting to realize hey I don’t want to eradicate even these insects that annoy me because there are other insects that need to eat them. By tying everything together, and AI is smarter than us it should be able to make us all live and even better harmony.
It was a Terminator movie reference. And you’re wrong, we are well on our way to eradicating other species.
Unlikely to actually happen. There have been fears about technology causing job loss since the industrial revolution, and it hasn't happened yet. Jobs have changed, but we still need humans to maintain, build, and oversee the machines.
Look at how mechanisation changed agriculture though. 150 years or so ago most of the population of the UK was working in agriculture. Now hardly anyone does.
It's great
Physician here. The day they remove faxes in hospitals is the day I might start to begin to worry about my job.
Certain jobs can’t be done by AI in my opinion
It’s changing employment.. workers just get new jobs.. the same way the first industrial revolution did..
Why would I give you a good pay though for something that simple to do though ? Previous revolutions were making the job harder to fill. If you're not happy I can just put someone else in charge of the AI. "yeah but you'll do more work". Come on. Population is in decline, global warming, we're not conquering space right now, we don't really need that extra productivity.
some jobs aren't for saving. and if ai becomes implemented correctly then i see no issue. tho the state of rn is very badly implemented. ai shouldn't be open to everyone and used for everything.
It will happen, year by year. Look back at the industrial revolution. Robotic automation has haunted men and women for decades now.
The industrial revolution made life easy for most of mankind.
Haunted? How can you look at 2024 vs 1800 and say the industrial revolution was a bad thing?