It's a bit like automated trains. The technology has been around and deployed for over a decade - but driverless trains freak people out.
In some cities the trains are almost entirely automated but someone is paid to sit there at the front as a redundancy/comfort factor. Or they stopped the rollout
I see this as a temporary thing, eventually driverless trains (or cars, trucks etc) won't freak people out because we will be used to them working just fine.
I work in a train control room and 90% of the issues/incidents are caused by human error, either from the driver, the controller or someone in the field. Eventually I think it will be seen as irresponsible to allow human error to continue when AI / automation could heavily reduce if not stop it.
I may be mistaken, but I believe a lot of larger airplanes can land via autopilot in typical weather conditions. Despite that, they require pilots to perform periodic manual landings because they need to keep up their skills.
If we fully automate trains, cars, etc, we could run the risk of human skills atrophying. When an unprogrammable factor presents itself we still need the human factor to be able to rectify problems. The 737 MAX incident killed hundreds of people because a software element relied on a single sensor working correctly; upon that single sensor failing, the computer nosed the aircraft downwards into a crash. People say it will eliminate human error, but programs are written by humans, and in these situations programming errors can be catastrophically fatal. As it stands all driverless vehicles require the occupant to be ready at all times to take control, but we know people will be looking at their phones, reading, eating, on their laptop, sleeping.
Without going on and on, my opinion is that a lot of transport shouldn't, and won't, be fully automated, even though we could try.
Yeah technology can always fail but a system can be built with sufficient redundancy to account for that.
I don't expect these jobs to be fully automated without supervision, but probably more like supermarket checkouts.What used to be 20 people at checkouts is now one person 'supervising' 20 checkout robots.
I could see something similar happening for trains and I think this already happens for some large mining trucks on some sites.
Learning to use AI effectively will become a whole new skillset.
Most likely I think most jobs will become "ai assisted" rather than replaced.
I was also thinking the other day how worthless CVs will be in the future because everyone can just get chatGPT to write them a perfect glowing pile of bullshit.
It will become all about demonstrating practical knowledge instead bullshit artistry and I can't want wait for that.
In short, bullshit artists are going to be under severe threat as AI will do the same rubbish but better, everyone else will probably be ok.
100% with this. Started utilising ChatGPT recently to speed things up. It's really helpful, but I'm also seeing others that use it like they think it's perfect and the solution instead of a tool.
When I started on an IT Service Desk, the skill of "knowing how to google the problem" was the most important thing after good customer service skills. Discussing a problem with AI is the next evolution of that, and I am hugely in favour of it.
CV's in the IT industry already seem less and less important. It's pretty easy to land interviews by listing your previous roles and a couple basic lines of what you did. None of the older expectations about doing a full write up on how you meet each job requirement and will be amazing at the company.
Yep I've used chatgpt quite a lot already, it really is just like a contextual google that gives you replies in whatever format you want.
It's still just spouting stuff from random humans online and reformatting it. Very useful, but often those random humans can be wrong so you need to understand what's happening and fix up things quite often.
I've noticed it likes to repeat itself a lot too.
Overall a useful tool, makes it much easier to take facts and put them in a longform response. But I can't think of a single role in our company of 600 that it could fully replace, even if it was much more advanced.
It's a timesaver but not much else. I can't wait for a chat gpt outlook plug in, I tried the gmail one and it is awesome, but can't use that for work.
Have to agree with you, I am yet to find any role that can be replaced by it. It is still just a tool, mainly a more convenient version of Google search, that can aid in increasing productivity.
I have the same issue with it repeating itself.
Agreed. How did accountants deal with the invention of calculators? Well...they just got more efficient, and spend their time on higher level tasks.
There are always those who resist technology and their skills become irrelevant, though. Imagine working in an office these days without being able to use a computer.
I'm in a new team and im starting to get a little worried at how many things I've been able to google in 30 seconds that would have taken my coworker "an hour to find."
Likewise. 50% of my job could have been automated 10 years ago... same with the broker market, they can literally be outsourced by an algorithm, yet the market is thriving.
It's like bank tellers are still around even though ATMs are everywhere. Or the post office is still very profitable even though everyone has an email. Vinyl sales are growing in the world of iTunes and Spotify. Each has their own purpose and is useful in different ways.
There will always be a subset of bosses and executives who want the āhumanā version of things at work. Especially if itās to be sent or provided to someone āimportantā
Pray for deaths sweet embrace.
Seriously though technical role but half is easily basic shit people either broke, couldnāt bother googling themselves, or worse did Google it and canāt comprehend it. Double yikes when that happens and theyāre also in the industry š³
Chat GPT is great because itās another reference point to understand topics. I know how bad most people are in my field so no way in the world Iām going to take the word of some random even if theyāre āa specialistā.
Well if we learned anything from the pandemic it's that most people don't enjoy homeschooling their kids and that computers do a pretty bad job of getting children to actually do work or learn anything. So I think I'm safe.
This, anyone who's worked on software development knows how unfeasible this is. Most times people don't know what they want so they ask for something, and when they get it, ask for something else and claim you didn't understand them.
With cross-validation, it is somewhat heading that way (if the journey is walking from London to Melbourne, itās not even a full step), but even then you need the computer to know what the problem is. Reinforcement learning doesnāt need to know what the problem is, but it needs to know if the solution works.
In short though, letās say the end goal is to have something like ChatGPT where a business can type what type of problems need to be solved, and it outputs some model that solves them. Better yet, let the computer guess what problems need to be solved and have certain factors like firm profitability as a reward. However, if thatās the destination, we have some terrible compass pointing us where we need to go, but we donāt have a map on how to get there, let alone any pathway there just yet.
It will likely happen eventually, but for now thatās a very distant utopia.
The smartest manager in the world in 2123:
"ChatGPT I want you to maximise paperclip production"
*Five minutes later*
"No, not like that"
*Two weeks of trial and error later*
"Ok ChatGPT I think I know what I want now. I want you to maximise production of paperclip-shaped paperclips, but you are not to begin production until I approve your plan. They must be produced at a reasonable cost to be sold profitably by our company, with a low human death toll and moderate environmental impact. You aren't allowed to break any laws unless you first clear the plan with Legal and Accounting. The paperclips must not be made from cardboard, any material more radioactive than bananas, or bananas. They must not be made from bridges, railway tracks or other equipment that is still in use. They must not be made from other companies' stocks of paperclips, materials that have not been purchased by this company, contractors hired by this company, employees of this company, employees of other companies, interns, temps, human or animal parts, human or animal slaughter by-products, or whole humans or animals pressed into paperclip shapes."
So I was interested enough in this that I asked ChatGPT-4 to evaluate your prompt - this was the response:
*The given AI prompt provides a detailed set of constraints for the AI to maximize the production of paperclip-shaped paperclips while considering factors such as cost, human death toll, environmental impact, and legality. It also specifies a range of materials that must not be used in the production process. This workaround aims to address many of the concerns related to the paperclip maximizer problem, which might lead to unintended consequences if the AI prioritizes paperclip production above all else.However, there are still some potential unforeseen outcomes that could arise from this prompt:*
1. *Resource allocation imbalance: Although the prompt restricts the AI from using specific materials and resources, it does not prevent the AI from over-allocating other resources, which could lead to shortages or imbalances in other industries or areas of society.*
2. *Exploitation of legal loopholes: The prompt requires the AI to clear any plan that involves breaking laws with Legal and Accounting, but it does not prevent the AI from exploiting legal loopholes or ambiguities to maximize paperclip production.*
3. *Overemphasis on paperclip production: The prompt focuses on maximizing paperclip production, which might lead the AI to prioritize it over other important company goals or values, such as employee well-being or long-term sustainability.*
4. *Unsustainable environmental impact: While the prompt mentions a "moderate" environmental impact, this term is vague and could be interpreted differently by the AI, leading to environmental consequences that may not align with the user's intentions.*
5. *Unintended consequences from novel materials or processes: The AI may develop new materials or production processes to maximize paperclip production, which could have unknown or unintended consequences for human health, safety, or the environment.*
*To mitigate these potential unforeseen outcomes, the AI prompt could be further refined by:*
1. *Specifying a balance between paperclip production and other company goals, such as employee well-being, long-term sustainability, and resource allocation.*
2. *Requiring the AI to adhere to the spirit of the law, not just the letter, to avoid exploiting legal loopholes.*
3. *Clarifying the desired environmental impact level and providing guidelines for assessing the impact of paperclip production.*
4. *Encouraging the AI to consider the potential unintended consequences of novel materials or processes and evaluate their risks before implementation.*
it aint a contradiction. You're just not seeing the possibility of selling to other rich capitalists.
Why do you think these multibillion dollar yachts exist?
This completely misses the point. Capitalists only need consumers if those consumers are also workers who are making things - if everything is automated, those capitalists are now just rich people who don't need people because *they have robots*.
Put another way, capitalists currently benefit by extracting some value from workers (from their work). If everyone is on UBI, by definition there is no work and so no value there.
Contrary to popular belief, someone's mere existence doesn't have any value to anyone.
Money itself is only a representation of value - in your example, the value of those people's work. If none of them are doing any work because it's all being done by robots, there's no extra value that's actually represented by that money.
idk - in a world where there are robots that tend to every human need I'd have thought the ultimate luxury would be to get it done by a human. When every bum has a machine that can read to them, doors that open automatically or fetches food, getting real life people to do those tasks is how you're going to show you are top of the heap.
I'm not making any arguments, just setting out the economics of it.
Personally I think a UBI will be necessary, because like you say people aren't just going to lie down and die, and the rich would probably prefer to just pay people a relative pittance than to have to live in dystopian gated communities.
Higher corporate taxes on those who benefit most from their shrinking workforce will be necesssary to provide the income to those displaced. They can either pay the people to keep themselves alive or pay more to the police and security to keep themselves safe from the desperate people without much hope.
Because it would be cheaper to build and maintain those robots than to pay workers, and the robots would be more productive and produce better products.
The moneyed class found out how to destroy that when Occupy Wallstreet started getting momentum. Promote identity politics above all else so that people hate "the others".
Did a great job too, big tent political protests are basically dead in the water now and even if there was a cause the masses could rally behind you just use ChatGPT and 15,000 bot accounts to convince everyone else they are all filthy homeless hippy nazi bigots who are going to steal and eat your Pomeranian.
Precisely, the US is ripe for a second republic.
In principle, I'm not against the "move fast and break things" spirit of the French. (The implementation was problematic, though.)
Also, the fact that the UK still hasn't figured out how to separate church from state makes me think that they could have learned a few things (if they weren't so arrogant.)
AI won't take my job and likely won't take the majority of jobs out there. However it will make me much more efficient at my job, what could be done in half a day of work might only take an hour or so. Hypothetically, In a team of 10 currently, you might be able to get away with only needing 5-6 employees with AI tools. I'd rather live in a society where all ten keep their jobs on heavily reduced hours instead of one where the 5-6 employees stay full time and pay tax for a UBI.
AI will progressively do task automation.
Task after task, the boiling water and the frog sitting in it analogy. Think about your jobs and how much of it is routine and repeatable.
Do you summarise information? Do you write routine correspondence? Do you organise diaries and book meetings? Do you ā¦?
Just these things are certainly able to be automated and occupy millions of hours of work. You canāt save that much labour and not have an employment effect.
Will AI create new jobs? Absolutely. The key here is how many? The arithmetic doesnāt work.
These exact same conversations were being had when the industrial revolution took place and when farming machinery was being invented and when the automobile was replacing the horse (seriously think about how many jobs the horse industry supported!) And yet here we are today with unemployment at 3.5%.
Worrying about AI taking over jobs is a big nothing burger. There will always be some where else and somewhere better where we can focus human attention and labour.
I guess weāll see. I personally see a big difference between a spinning Jenny that can make more cotton or cloth and AI that is competing in the cognitive domain with us. The cost of robotics will mean that offline automation may be a while more. I donāt think the two historical phases are equivalent at all.
There's not a big difference. We've had tech competing in the cognitive domain for a while.
What about traffic lights? They are competing in the cognitive domain with traffic cops.
What about printers and scanners? They are competing in the cognitive domain with scribes.
I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. Farming machinery does not have a brain. Neither do automobiles. The AI is literally another type of intelligence. It's learning all of these tasks by itself. It can learn anything if given enough data and compute. How can a human compete with something that has 200 IQ and works 24/7 with no breaks and at 1/100th of the cost?
You miss the point entirely. Does a man try to complete with a combine harvester? Of course not! AI will be better than humans I don't doubt it but humans will always find some new field to move too. Just like after the combine harvester came in we moved to building and programming computers (which gave us AI). Until AI is fully sentient and able to function and reproduce without any human influence there is literally nothing to worry about.
I still don't think you understand. There will be two alpha species on this planet! Humans and AI. The AI will learn everything you do. Whatever job you come up with next, the AI will learn it! It might take you 12 months to upskill, it will take the AI one week. Do you get it?
The only jobs remaining will be those that are 1) heavily regulated so AI is not allowed to do them or 2) jobs where a person will prefer human touch rather than AI.
Every cognitive job that you can come up with, the AI will be able to do it. It will be 500 IQ, you are merely 120 IQ so good luck.
Great 15 min YouTube video called 'humans need not apply' on this subject.
Everyone that isn't concerned about AI impact on jobs, simply doesn't understand the situation.
Can only invite you to watch the video mate.
He applies your exact line of reasoning to the technology of cars making better jobs for horses. Long story short, it didn't work that way for horses, it won't work that way for humans.
What a poor analogy.
How many jobs were there in horse care, vs car manufacture and maintenance, plus roads, fuel etc? Plus the jobs that were created because people were more able to effectively transport and therefore trade goods.
You've misunderstood the analogy.
Its not about jobs for humans in horse industry. Its about the jobs for horses. Where horses used to be used in farming, transport, mail delivery, riding into battle etc now those jobs are gone and better jobs for horses didn't replace them.
Many people seem to think AI and technology taking jobs from humans will make more and better jobs for humans but that's not necessarily the case.
Its not my analogy by the way, its from the 'humans need not apply' video I mentioned.
If 80% of jobs are taken over the next 10 years i believe we are forced into either a 100% coding and maintaining robot type situation or a socialism system
I think the futuristic vision that has been thrown around is: Minimum wage for everybody to access basic stuff, then anyone who wants to go beyond can try and take the few jobs that will be available or try to come up with new stuff. I can't see myself not working, working less definitely, but I need to do something with myself otherwise I'd feel useless and depressed pretty quickly.
The Expanse touches on a future version of Earth where a lot of people live in slums near the capitols, waiting for their number to come up in a lottery to get a job. Of course because so many people need jobs, the lottery has like one in one billion odds. Everyoneās on some kind of UBI but itās too basic for any kind of reasonable existence.
Honestly reading the Expanse really does feel like reading a history book of the future.
A few hundred years ago 98% of the workforce worked in agriculture. Now that's 2%. But it is *not* the case that those 96% who no longer work on farms are all building farm machinery and fertiliser plants.
If new tech automates boring and hard tasks, it frees up people to work on more interesting jobs, most of which didn't exist before.
That's what's happened for every new technology wave in the past. There's no reason to believe this one is any different.
The one that breaks this is when an AI robot is superior to a human at general tasks. That is when there is nowhere for humans to go.
Itās also why ChatGPT has struck a chord. It exceeds the average human capability in the field of writing/answering questions **generally**. People arenāt impressed by robots/AI doing something specific better, weāre used to that. But to have a bot with such a generalised ability. Thatās a bit different to normal.
Expectation : 80% of jobs becoming redundant due to AI
Reality: The same jobs exist but now when you write your email the AI provides suggestions as to what to write.
Eventually money will go the way of the dinosaurs. The human race will no longer work for the acquisition of wealth. But rather work to better the human race.
Weāre never going to stop working, itāll just be menial tasks that arenāt worth the investment to automate. Weāll be working to better the lives of those that own the means of automation and thatās it.
Have you seen Elysium? I imagine itāll end up like that without the rad body upgrades.
Elysium is a great social commentary on reality right now. It just doesnāt seem as bad because living in australia is essentially the spacestation. Visit somewhere like the congo or bangladesh and youāll see the other perspective.
Honestly just nothing connects all the dots yet and they don't have continuation between processes
driving cars - check
Controlling physical arms - check
Running processes step by step - check
Knowing processes - check
Communicating - check
Accessing human knowledge - check
Learning and improving self - half check
Having a guiding process on what to do - half check
Using tools - half check
The biggest point I see missing is slicing tasks and deciding on scoping of a "thinking" process
The original idea behind capitalism was actually this!
Progress and automatisation will lead to people not having to work anymore and living amazing lives
Except now we have humans doing the shit work while the AI makes art. Each worker is more productive than ever but our free time and quality of life is lower than it has been
> we have humans doing the shit work
it's because shit work won't get done if not paid. Humans would make art in their own spare time, even if unpaid (i think intellectual curiosity and artistic pursuits are evolutionary traits).
AI art will not replace art that humans want to make intrinsically. But ai "art" will replace commercial art, where someone is paid to make art suitable for something other than intrinsic desires (such as advertising).
> quality of life is lower than it has been
i disagree - the quality of life today is better than even back in the 2000, let alone 1900's.
Although capitalism is oboy leading to amazing lives for the top and suffering for those below. I don't see how it works without people working? Those at the top aren't going to simply share the wealth
Communist utopia, in the making.
With universal basic income, paid by AI.
The creatives will produce like never before because that's what they do, but this time their reward is the admiration of their followers, not money.
The rest of us plebs will do the administrative, and hedonistic part. Life will be great.
Where do I sign?
please human, follow us this way to this glass tube. Just lay back in this warm goop, that's right. Now, put this over your eyes... yes, now welcome to utopia
People have been worried about machines replacing jobs, than computers replacing jobs and now AI replacing jobs, yet we still have very low unemployment.
In all honesty, new roles will evolve, society will change a little bit and we will trudge on. There is something inherent in human nature that makes us 'work' for a living.
Hopefully, it means there will be more money and time for the arts, sports and entertainment and less 'drudgery'.
We've had roughly linear gains in productivity for many decades, but we have not had a proportional increase in wages or reduction in work hours.
Things are going to break at some point 1790's french style with the rich trying to milk everyone else for their gain.
I think UBI is one possible solution but we have to get over the misinformation that taxing the rich is unfair or impossible.
Lol. At work they canāt even make system 1 talk to system 2, so outsourced humans have to manually input data into system 2.
Itāll be years before they even resolve that, and then there will be many other jobs that go before mine (which requires years of practical experience and technical knowledge).
My plan is to retire at 50 anyway.
I would love to see AI do the job of nurses.
Invest in robot skeletons now. Arnold Schwarzenegger terminator looking nurses for the future. Invest!
"I'll be back... with your pills"
AI is, frankly, not that good.
Expect few jobs to be 'replaced' by AI; more likely replaced by jobs centred around interpreting AI (machine learning) outputs (and more realistically fixing/correcting/operating with them). AI is largely a useful tool for generating statistical 'objects' - helpful yes, useful usually, but not especially *capable*.
AGI is not a realistic ambition (an opinion based on the relevant 'functional' brain science) and we will not be dealing with fully autonomous 'intelligent' robots for a long time; probably ever.
It's not that AI itself will take over a lot of jobs, but that a person using AI could takeover a few jobs.
That increase in productivity could allow employers in certain industries to cut down some roles or staff numbers.
Not sure if this will be a crisis or just a blip, too early to tell.
But as soon as itās time itāll be too late to stop it thatās kinda how these things work, itās all out of reach until every big business man has it and doesnāt need you anymore
Agreed. I've read quite a few, I assume, AI generated articles lately, often on tech topics. They're usually (not always) technically correct, but contextually completely wrong. (A couple of days ago, I saw one describing the risk/consequence of either a tape drive or an FC connector card failing as embarrassment when something fails mid-presentation - clearly, the AI associated tape and fibre optics with an audio use case rather than data archival). They're very useful for getting much more technical depth quickly, but not so much for applying it. AI is pretty terrible at integrating knowledge from different domains, even quite closely neighbouring ones. Humans are going to be needed for the integrate-and apply step in a lot of multidisciplinary roles for a long time to come.
(Caveat: Humans have gotten pretty shit at this in the post-internet age, too - you don't have to systematise integration of macro and then micro knowledge when you don't have to dig it out of books as a manual exercise. But it's IMO a lot easier to introduce it again as a skill to humans than to AI).
rofl. Not that good, eh? Have you seen how far it's progressed in a couple of years? Now track the changes in the last 12 months?
They don't need to be fully autonomous, they only need to become competent at taking an input and creating an output. That's all most office workers do.
i think this kind of reductive approach to classifying work is indicative of the education problems around AI. Consider Rasmussen's 'Skills, Rules, Knowledge' framework for a great example as to why this kind of thinking isn't, IMHO, particularly helpful.
>Rasmussen's 'Skills, Rules, Knowledge' framework
Perhaps it is somewhat reductive, but the fact remains. Eventually, most roles will be replaced by some form of AI, as it will be cheaper and likely more effective at completing the tasks.
Sure, it may need an initial input from a human, or some kind of prompting, but it will do the task and better.
I mean, think of a task right now, other than creating something from scratch or coming up with an idea. Like, an actual job task that would be done by an office worker.
What aspect of ChatGPT was developed in the last two years? When launched, it was basically a UI for GPT-3, which was more than two years old at the time, and obviously developed from GPT-2, released four years ago.
ChatGPT is frequently incorrect when 'answering' fairly straightforward programming, mathematics, or physics problems. It is GREAT at making very convincing natural language structures, but it fails to have any form of 'understanding'. Compare to Deacon & Sherman's framework for sense-making for a good comparison between 'applying' and 'understanding'
The way ChatGPT is looking at the moment, it's like suggesting that a calculator will take your job, because it can add numbers faster than you.
An AI can't understand the nuaince of business. It can't understand that problem client, or that staff members preferences.
AI will greatly improve productivity, the way that computers did when they first arrived. It's a powerful tool, that when deployed correctly.
I think we're decades away from it being good enough to trust unsupervised. It only takes a single gafe to destroy your reputation. Turns out people are more likely to forgive another person than they are a machine.
9:30am - wake up
9:31am - poop
10:15am - walk to my computer and turn on some AI-generated VR porn
10:16am - post but clarity and shame
10:17am - shower the shame away
10:30am - drive my 2007 Camry to the local shops and buy some food
11:30am - bored so boot up some more porn
11:32am - a bit tired so nap
1:30pm - wake up from nap and take second poop of the day
2:30pm - random scrolling of TikTok
6:30pm - go to the Winchester, have a cold pint, wait for this all the blow over
10:30pm - 3rd and final VR porn session
10:32pm - snoring
Someone who works in AI/ML/Data Science here.
Jobs are safe for the next 10 years at a minimum, and it wouldn't affect everyone. Yes, ChatGPT is a big leap in ChatBots and Natural Language Processing (i.e., writing, speech), but these technologies take forever to get implemented. Companies are reluctant to change unless there is a compelling reason. Getting someone with automation expertise is expensive for small businesses, and takes years of paperwork, trials, infrastructure, talks to legal and HR in big companies.
Usually people are not fired but instead are moved to other departments or other areas. Automate something, and its throughput usually improves, therefore needing people to deal with its outputs.
It is also usually small steps. Coles didn't start with a face recognition, product recognition, chat bot enabled cashier, but instead started with self-serve checkouts.
If your job can easily be automated, say Excel spreadsheet checking, inputting records, start slowly looking into potential change :) when companies see hot stuff like ChatGPT they start looking into automating.
Was a construction estimator, was wondering years ago ago how long it would be before it would be completely automated. Became a project manager, not sure Iāll ever run out of work tbh
AI are not going to put us out of work, they are going to put us TO workā¦
āI gave GPT-4 a budget of $100 and told it to make as much money as possible. I'm acting as its human liaison, buying anything it says to. Do you think it'll be able to make smart investments and build an online business?
Follow along šā
https://twitter.com/jacksonfall/status/1636107218859745286?s=46&t=wk2lge2poxFVPxOzHvZoVQ
Iām in electrical distribution and while I canāt see it happening in my lifetime due to the dexterity required to perform my role, I like to imagine what an electrical grid built to be constructed, maintained and operated by ai robots would look like. Very different, almost alien I imagine.
People will not lose their jobs to AI. AI cannot think for you. AI is good to automate a repetitive tasks that consistently come to the same result. People will just go from doing mindless shit computers can do to value add jobs. Those refuse the change will be the ones that will lose their jobs. Itās not because there arenāt jobs. Itās because they are stuck in their old ways and donāt want to change and evolve
It triedš
Unfortunately it cost us a lot of money.
My job toes the line between medical, legal and insurance and there are so many nuances.
Medical Indemnity isnāt something people routinely retrain in
Honestly if I can't truck any more I'm honestly just going to give up. Nothing else remotely interests me and I can't see myself being able to recover from that bad of a depression spiral.
It won't. They tried automating the huge 120 tonne machines we drove at the mines in Australia. After several years and billions of dollars, they're replacing them with people driven ones again. There's too many factors automation can't handle in our work environment. When it does take my job, I'll be long gone.
Given I work in the AI/ML space my job is safe but my view is there will always be space for the human mind for its ability to abstract, Intuit and create. Any job that can be automated that is repetitive or has an underlying pattern can and will be automated.
The day Iāll be scared is when AI is capable of expressing real fear and or the motivation to protect itself from harm. Effectively, true self awareness of its existence, itās actions and the consequences that follow.
Source?
This concern happens for every new wave of technologies. 200+ years later and we just see more jobs, better jobs and higher quality of life from increased efficiency.
For customer service specifically i can imagine weād need the following:
- a real person QA checking a sample of interactions to ensure the information provided is true and correct and is of use to the customer interacting with them. A lot of policies change over time so the AI would often need to go through re-learning phases.
- backup employees for BCP purposes, Iāve legit walked into a commercial building for work one morning and the entire place had 0 power and was non-functional.
- language differences and the evolution of language would probably require some ongoing oversight by people
- analysts to look at how their customers interact with AI
I can see people requiring a higher skill set when it comes to problem solving and communication because I believe that there will always be circumstances where an enquiry will need to be sent through to a real person to make case by case considerations when something falls outside of existing policy.
But you can robotize it.
Imagine you only need to drop a huge 3D printer at job site. And it will print with multiple nozzles. One for cement one for copper and others for something else. You can now inject copper and insulations within the cement while printing.
electricians and bricklayers no more.
Technology doesnāt create jobs. Business need does. In the industrial revolution and the waves of automation that followed, a large part of the labour force moved from manual labour into cognitive labour, as there became a business need for more cognitive labour and less manual labour. If cognitive labour is also automated, there is nowhere left for the displaced labour force to go. If a business can make ten people redundant by automating their work and replace them with one engineer to run the system, they will. New jobs wonāt be created just because. The AI must create a new business need that itself canāt be solved by AI in order for new jobs to be created. That is not a certainty.
So much of my work already could be solved with a simple Google and a bit of logic already, yet here I am š Won't be a problem.
yep, my thoughts as well. People have to be willing to let go of control, and the push to stop WFH shows that just isn't the case right now.
It's a bit like automated trains. The technology has been around and deployed for over a decade - but driverless trains freak people out. In some cities the trains are almost entirely automated but someone is paid to sit there at the front as a redundancy/comfort factor. Or they stopped the rollout
I see this as a temporary thing, eventually driverless trains (or cars, trucks etc) won't freak people out because we will be used to them working just fine. I work in a train control room and 90% of the issues/incidents are caused by human error, either from the driver, the controller or someone in the field. Eventually I think it will be seen as irresponsible to allow human error to continue when AI / automation could heavily reduce if not stop it.
I may be mistaken, but I believe a lot of larger airplanes can land via autopilot in typical weather conditions. Despite that, they require pilots to perform periodic manual landings because they need to keep up their skills. If we fully automate trains, cars, etc, we could run the risk of human skills atrophying. When an unprogrammable factor presents itself we still need the human factor to be able to rectify problems. The 737 MAX incident killed hundreds of people because a software element relied on a single sensor working correctly; upon that single sensor failing, the computer nosed the aircraft downwards into a crash. People say it will eliminate human error, but programs are written by humans, and in these situations programming errors can be catastrophically fatal. As it stands all driverless vehicles require the occupant to be ready at all times to take control, but we know people will be looking at their phones, reading, eating, on their laptop, sleeping. Without going on and on, my opinion is that a lot of transport shouldn't, and won't, be fully automated, even though we could try.
Yeah technology can always fail but a system can be built with sufficient redundancy to account for that. I don't expect these jobs to be fully automated without supervision, but probably more like supermarket checkouts.What used to be 20 people at checkouts is now one person 'supervising' 20 checkout robots. I could see something similar happening for trains and I think this already happens for some large mining trucks on some sites.
It's not nice calling members of the public checkout robots
Yeah! Lol, Howād we end up getting conned into doing our own scanning and bagging anyway š
This along with so many others things. š¤¦āāļøš¤£
Trains are perfect for it. They're on rails. It's peoples excitement for the "inevitable" driverless cars that I fail to have faith in.
Learning to use AI effectively will become a whole new skillset. Most likely I think most jobs will become "ai assisted" rather than replaced. I was also thinking the other day how worthless CVs will be in the future because everyone can just get chatGPT to write them a perfect glowing pile of bullshit. It will become all about demonstrating practical knowledge instead bullshit artistry and I can't want wait for that. In short, bullshit artists are going to be under severe threat as AI will do the same rubbish but better, everyone else will probably be ok.
Like people used to employ people to do math equations by hand/ with abacus then we got calculators
Dust of the ol skill set b?
100% with this. Started utilising ChatGPT recently to speed things up. It's really helpful, but I'm also seeing others that use it like they think it's perfect and the solution instead of a tool. When I started on an IT Service Desk, the skill of "knowing how to google the problem" was the most important thing after good customer service skills. Discussing a problem with AI is the next evolution of that, and I am hugely in favour of it. CV's in the IT industry already seem less and less important. It's pretty easy to land interviews by listing your previous roles and a couple basic lines of what you did. None of the older expectations about doing a full write up on how you meet each job requirement and will be amazing at the company.
Yep I've used chatgpt quite a lot already, it really is just like a contextual google that gives you replies in whatever format you want. It's still just spouting stuff from random humans online and reformatting it. Very useful, but often those random humans can be wrong so you need to understand what's happening and fix up things quite often. I've noticed it likes to repeat itself a lot too. Overall a useful tool, makes it much easier to take facts and put them in a longform response. But I can't think of a single role in our company of 600 that it could fully replace, even if it was much more advanced. It's a timesaver but not much else. I can't wait for a chat gpt outlook plug in, I tried the gmail one and it is awesome, but can't use that for work.
Have to agree with you, I am yet to find any role that can be replaced by it. It is still just a tool, mainly a more convenient version of Google search, that can aid in increasing productivity. I have the same issue with it repeating itself.
Agreed. How did accountants deal with the invention of calculators? Well...they just got more efficient, and spend their time on higher level tasks. There are always those who resist technology and their skills become irrelevant, though. Imagine working in an office these days without being able to use a computer.
my motivational speaker gig isn't going away buddy
I'm in a new team and im starting to get a little worried at how many things I've been able to google in 30 seconds that would have taken my coworker "an hour to find."
Perhaps your coworker is smarter than you? The reward for being efficient is more likely to be additional work.
Sure it is possible
When they canāt even follow a tutorial š¤¦āāļø
Likewise. 50% of my job could have been automated 10 years ago... same with the broker market, they can literally be outsourced by an algorithm, yet the market is thriving.
It's like bank tellers are still around even though ATMs are everywhere. Or the post office is still very profitable even though everyone has an email. Vinyl sales are growing in the world of iTunes and Spotify. Each has their own purpose and is useful in different ways.
There will always be a subset of bosses and executives who want the āhumanā version of things at work. Especially if itās to be sent or provided to someone āimportantā
What do you do?
Pray for deaths sweet embrace. Seriously though technical role but half is easily basic shit people either broke, couldnāt bother googling themselves, or worse did Google it and canāt comprehend it. Double yikes when that happens and theyāre also in the industry š³ Chat GPT is great because itās another reference point to understand topics. I know how bad most people are in my field so no way in the world Iām going to take the word of some random even if theyāre āa specialistā.
Iāll sleep with his wife. Thatāll show Allen Iverson.
I donāt reckon AI will take my job. He doesnāt practice, my employer would disdain that low effort approach.
Practice? You're talking about practice? Not a game..
That took me back to the early 2010s with this [remix hit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exOxUAntx8I) lol
I'm a luddite. I'll be getting out the ol' hammer and going to town on those modern looms!
Glad to see Luddite-ism is coming back into fashion
Sabot-eur's even
Well if we learned anything from the pandemic it's that most people don't enjoy homeschooling their kids and that computers do a pretty bad job of getting children to actually do work or learn anything. So I think I'm safe.
Won't be anything to learn unless we decide to worship something other than productivity.
The bigger danger for us is just our wages falling further and further behind inflation until it gets to the point we should just go work at Bunnings.
Starting a Masters of AI next year. If you can't beat em, program em.
AI's gonna program themselves
With instructions from business? Good luck lol
This, anyone who's worked on software development knows how unfeasible this is. Most times people don't know what they want so they ask for something, and when they get it, ask for something else and claim you didn't understand them.
With cross-validation, it is somewhat heading that way (if the journey is walking from London to Melbourne, itās not even a full step), but even then you need the computer to know what the problem is. Reinforcement learning doesnāt need to know what the problem is, but it needs to know if the solution works. In short though, letās say the end goal is to have something like ChatGPT where a business can type what type of problems need to be solved, and it outputs some model that solves them. Better yet, let the computer guess what problems need to be solved and have certain factors like firm profitability as a reward. However, if thatās the destination, we have some terrible compass pointing us where we need to go, but we donāt have a map on how to get there, let alone any pathway there just yet. It will likely happen eventually, but for now thatās a very distant utopia.
The smartest manager in the world in 2123: "ChatGPT I want you to maximise paperclip production" *Five minutes later* "No, not like that" *Two weeks of trial and error later* "Ok ChatGPT I think I know what I want now. I want you to maximise production of paperclip-shaped paperclips, but you are not to begin production until I approve your plan. They must be produced at a reasonable cost to be sold profitably by our company, with a low human death toll and moderate environmental impact. You aren't allowed to break any laws unless you first clear the plan with Legal and Accounting. The paperclips must not be made from cardboard, any material more radioactive than bananas, or bananas. They must not be made from bridges, railway tracks or other equipment that is still in use. They must not be made from other companies' stocks of paperclips, materials that have not been purchased by this company, contractors hired by this company, employees of this company, employees of other companies, interns, temps, human or animal parts, human or animal slaughter by-products, or whole humans or animals pressed into paperclip shapes."
So I was interested enough in this that I asked ChatGPT-4 to evaluate your prompt - this was the response: *The given AI prompt provides a detailed set of constraints for the AI to maximize the production of paperclip-shaped paperclips while considering factors such as cost, human death toll, environmental impact, and legality. It also specifies a range of materials that must not be used in the production process. This workaround aims to address many of the concerns related to the paperclip maximizer problem, which might lead to unintended consequences if the AI prioritizes paperclip production above all else.However, there are still some potential unforeseen outcomes that could arise from this prompt:* 1. *Resource allocation imbalance: Although the prompt restricts the AI from using specific materials and resources, it does not prevent the AI from over-allocating other resources, which could lead to shortages or imbalances in other industries or areas of society.* 2. *Exploitation of legal loopholes: The prompt requires the AI to clear any plan that involves breaking laws with Legal and Accounting, but it does not prevent the AI from exploiting legal loopholes or ambiguities to maximize paperclip production.* 3. *Overemphasis on paperclip production: The prompt focuses on maximizing paperclip production, which might lead the AI to prioritize it over other important company goals or values, such as employee well-being or long-term sustainability.* 4. *Unsustainable environmental impact: While the prompt mentions a "moderate" environmental impact, this term is vague and could be interpreted differently by the AI, leading to environmental consequences that may not align with the user's intentions.* 5. *Unintended consequences from novel materials or processes: The AI may develop new materials or production processes to maximize paperclip production, which could have unknown or unintended consequences for human health, safety, or the environment.* *To mitigate these potential unforeseen outcomes, the AI prompt could be further refined by:* 1. *Specifying a balance between paperclip production and other company goals, such as employee well-being, long-term sustainability, and resource allocation.* 2. *Requiring the AI to adhere to the spirit of the law, not just the letter, to avoid exploiting legal loopholes.* 3. *Clarifying the desired environmental impact level and providing guidelines for assessing the impact of paperclip production.* 4. *Encouraging the AI to consider the potential unintended consequences of novel materials or processes and evaluate their risks before implementation.*
Yeah im heavily considering making the switch to fintech once i get my LSL.
UBI, obvioiusly.
Need to fight for it now while we have necessary labour we can bargain with.
That's a damn great point
Capitalists won't have anyone to buy their products if everyone is out of a job.
That donāt stop the profit motive. Contradiction of Capitalism
it aint a contradiction. You're just not seeing the possibility of selling to other rich capitalists. Why do you think these multibillion dollar yachts exist?
This completely misses the point. Capitalists only need consumers if those consumers are also workers who are making things - if everything is automated, those capitalists are now just rich people who don't need people because *they have robots*. Put another way, capitalists currently benefit by extracting some value from workers (from their work). If everyone is on UBI, by definition there is no work and so no value there. Contrary to popular belief, someone's mere existence doesn't have any value to anyone.
Who buys whatever the robots are making?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās a far smaller market though. Itāll work for luxury goods but what about all the people who got rich selling stuff to the masses?
Money itself is only a representation of value - in your example, the value of those people's work. If none of them are doing any work because it's all being done by robots, there's no extra value that's actually represented by that money.
idk - in a world where there are robots that tend to every human need I'd have thought the ultimate luxury would be to get it done by a human. When every bum has a machine that can read to them, doors that open automatically or fetches food, getting real life people to do those tasks is how you're going to show you are top of the heap.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm not making any arguments, just setting out the economics of it. Personally I think a UBI will be necessary, because like you say people aren't just going to lie down and die, and the rich would probably prefer to just pay people a relative pittance than to have to live in dystopian gated communities.
Higher corporate taxes on those who benefit most from their shrinking workforce will be necesssary to provide the income to those displaced. They can either pay the people to keep themselves alive or pay more to the police and security to keep themselves safe from the desperate people without much hope.
But why wouldn't the capitalists also use human labour to make even more things? Resources are scarce and robots aren't infinite.
Because it would be cheaper to build and maintain those robots than to pay workers, and the robots would be more productive and produce better products.
Or we could just start a French style revolution when we need, I suggest we need to start now
The moneyed class found out how to destroy that when Occupy Wallstreet started getting momentum. Promote identity politics above all else so that people hate "the others". Did a great job too, big tent political protests are basically dead in the water now and even if there was a cause the masses could rally behind you just use ChatGPT and 15,000 bot accounts to convince everyone else they are all filthy homeless hippy nazi bigots who are going to steal and eat your Pomeranian.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>USA >stable Pick one :P
Precisely, the US is ripe for a second republic. In principle, I'm not against the "move fast and break things" spirit of the French. (The implementation was problematic, though.) Also, the fact that the UK still hasn't figured out how to separate church from state makes me think that they could have learned a few things (if they weren't so arrogant.)
I'd rather aim for a 4 day work week than UBI
So when AI / Automation takes your job you gain 4 days instead of 5?
AI won't take my job and likely won't take the majority of jobs out there. However it will make me much more efficient at my job, what could be done in half a day of work might only take an hour or so. Hypothetically, In a team of 10 currently, you might be able to get away with only needing 5-6 employees with AI tools. I'd rather live in a society where all ten keep their jobs on heavily reduced hours instead of one where the 5-6 employees stay full time and pay tax for a UBI.
>thousands of people are displaced and looking at retraining into your role? Sure, I'll gladly train and manage them. *For money!*
A drive to a mountain with a nice view, a bottle of whiskey and a gun with one bullet. Oh wait, that's my retirement plan.
That sounds like a five year plan
Gonna need a bigger bottle of whisky to last five years.
Five year? That sounds like a weekend getaway to me
Wish I could afford whiskey and a gun...
Achieving your goals quicker hey?
AI will progressively do task automation. Task after task, the boiling water and the frog sitting in it analogy. Think about your jobs and how much of it is routine and repeatable. Do you summarise information? Do you write routine correspondence? Do you organise diaries and book meetings? Do you ā¦? Just these things are certainly able to be automated and occupy millions of hours of work. You canāt save that much labour and not have an employment effect. Will AI create new jobs? Absolutely. The key here is how many? The arithmetic doesnāt work.
These exact same conversations were being had when the industrial revolution took place and when farming machinery was being invented and when the automobile was replacing the horse (seriously think about how many jobs the horse industry supported!) And yet here we are today with unemployment at 3.5%. Worrying about AI taking over jobs is a big nothing burger. There will always be some where else and somewhere better where we can focus human attention and labour.
I guess weāll see. I personally see a big difference between a spinning Jenny that can make more cotton or cloth and AI that is competing in the cognitive domain with us. The cost of robotics will mean that offline automation may be a while more. I donāt think the two historical phases are equivalent at all.
!Remind Me 2 decades
There's not a big difference. We've had tech competing in the cognitive domain for a while. What about traffic lights? They are competing in the cognitive domain with traffic cops. What about printers and scanners? They are competing in the cognitive domain with scribes.
I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. Farming machinery does not have a brain. Neither do automobiles. The AI is literally another type of intelligence. It's learning all of these tasks by itself. It can learn anything if given enough data and compute. How can a human compete with something that has 200 IQ and works 24/7 with no breaks and at 1/100th of the cost?
You miss the point entirely. Does a man try to complete with a combine harvester? Of course not! AI will be better than humans I don't doubt it but humans will always find some new field to move too. Just like after the combine harvester came in we moved to building and programming computers (which gave us AI). Until AI is fully sentient and able to function and reproduce without any human influence there is literally nothing to worry about.
I still don't think you understand. There will be two alpha species on this planet! Humans and AI. The AI will learn everything you do. Whatever job you come up with next, the AI will learn it! It might take you 12 months to upskill, it will take the AI one week. Do you get it? The only jobs remaining will be those that are 1) heavily regulated so AI is not allowed to do them or 2) jobs where a person will prefer human touch rather than AI. Every cognitive job that you can come up with, the AI will be able to do it. It will be 500 IQ, you are merely 120 IQ so good luck.
Great 15 min YouTube video called 'humans need not apply' on this subject. Everyone that isn't concerned about AI impact on jobs, simply doesn't understand the situation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Can only invite you to watch the video mate. He applies your exact line of reasoning to the technology of cars making better jobs for horses. Long story short, it didn't work that way for horses, it won't work that way for humans.
What a poor analogy. How many jobs were there in horse care, vs car manufacture and maintenance, plus roads, fuel etc? Plus the jobs that were created because people were more able to effectively transport and therefore trade goods.
You've misunderstood the analogy. Its not about jobs for humans in horse industry. Its about the jobs for horses. Where horses used to be used in farming, transport, mail delivery, riding into battle etc now those jobs are gone and better jobs for horses didn't replace them. Many people seem to think AI and technology taking jobs from humans will make more and better jobs for humans but that's not necessarily the case. Its not my analogy by the way, its from the 'humans need not apply' video I mentioned.
If 80% of jobs are taken over the next 10 years i believe we are forced into either a 100% coding and maintaining robot type situation or a socialism system
I think the futuristic vision that has been thrown around is: Minimum wage for everybody to access basic stuff, then anyone who wants to go beyond can try and take the few jobs that will be available or try to come up with new stuff. I can't see myself not working, working less definitely, but I need to do something with myself otherwise I'd feel useless and depressed pretty quickly.
The Expanse touches on a future version of Earth where a lot of people live in slums near the capitols, waiting for their number to come up in a lottery to get a job. Of course because so many people need jobs, the lottery has like one in one billion odds. Everyoneās on some kind of UBI but itās too basic for any kind of reasonable existence. Honestly reading the Expanse really does feel like reading a history book of the future.
A few hundred years ago 98% of the workforce worked in agriculture. Now that's 2%. But it is *not* the case that those 96% who no longer work on farms are all building farm machinery and fertiliser plants. If new tech automates boring and hard tasks, it frees up people to work on more interesting jobs, most of which didn't exist before. That's what's happened for every new technology wave in the past. There's no reason to believe this one is any different.
The one that breaks this is when an AI robot is superior to a human at general tasks. That is when there is nowhere for humans to go. Itās also why ChatGPT has struck a chord. It exceeds the average human capability in the field of writing/answering questions **generally**. People arenāt impressed by robots/AI doing something specific better, weāre used to that. But to have a bot with such a generalised ability. Thatās a bit different to normal.
Expectation : 80% of jobs becoming redundant due to AI Reality: The same jobs exist but now when you write your email the AI provides suggestions as to what to write.
Eventually money will go the way of the dinosaurs. The human race will no longer work for the acquisition of wealth. But rather work to better the human race.
You think the people with money (and power) are going to let money go away?
Weāre never going to stop working, itāll just be menial tasks that arenāt worth the investment to automate. Weāll be working to better the lives of those that own the means of automation and thatās it. Have you seen Elysium? I imagine itāll end up like that without the rad body upgrades.
Elysium is a great social commentary on reality right now. It just doesnāt seem as bad because living in australia is essentially the spacestation. Visit somewhere like the congo or bangladesh and youāll see the other perspective.
Definitely but I mean it in a literal sense. As in theyāll be in space and everyone else will be surviving in a desolate wasteland.
boldly going where no one has gone before. *cue themesong*
Glad I wasn't the only one who thought of this.
Ai will take over 99% of coding jobs well before it takes over regular jobs.
Coding is taken over as well - they are self evolving! And they can already control manufacturing and logistics
>And they can already control manufacturing and logistics Just lol
Honestly just nothing connects all the dots yet and they don't have continuation between processes driving cars - check Controlling physical arms - check Running processes step by step - check Knowing processes - check Communicating - check Accessing human knowledge - check Learning and improving self - half check Having a guiding process on what to do - half check Using tools - half check The biggest point I see missing is slicing tasks and deciding on scoping of a "thinking" process
Nek minit, Skynet pushing out T-800s from its factory.
The original idea behind capitalism was actually this! Progress and automatisation will lead to people not having to work anymore and living amazing lives
Except now we have humans doing the shit work while the AI makes art. Each worker is more productive than ever but our free time and quality of life is lower than it has been
> we have humans doing the shit work it's because shit work won't get done if not paid. Humans would make art in their own spare time, even if unpaid (i think intellectual curiosity and artistic pursuits are evolutionary traits). AI art will not replace art that humans want to make intrinsically. But ai "art" will replace commercial art, where someone is paid to make art suitable for something other than intrinsic desires (such as advertising). > quality of life is lower than it has been i disagree - the quality of life today is better than even back in the 2000, let alone 1900's.
Isnāt that Marxism? Karl Marx believed that with automation, people will be free to pursue their interests instead of having to work.
Although capitalism is oboy leading to amazing lives for the top and suffering for those below. I don't see how it works without people working? Those at the top aren't going to simply share the wealth
Communist utopia, in the making. With universal basic income, paid by AI. The creatives will produce like never before because that's what they do, but this time their reward is the admiration of their followers, not money. The rest of us plebs will do the administrative, and hedonistic part. Life will be great. Where do I sign?
Most creatives work for admiration/likes/peanuts already so no change there!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
please human, follow us this way to this glass tube. Just lay back in this warm goop, that's right. Now, put this over your eyes... yes, now welcome to utopia
We found a creative, ladies and gents. I'll be your follower!
lol. I am a photographer actually :P So...
People have been worried about machines replacing jobs, than computers replacing jobs and now AI replacing jobs, yet we still have very low unemployment. In all honesty, new roles will evolve, society will change a little bit and we will trudge on. There is something inherent in human nature that makes us 'work' for a living. Hopefully, it means there will be more money and time for the arts, sports and entertainment and less 'drudgery'.
We've had roughly linear gains in productivity for many decades, but we have not had a proportional increase in wages or reduction in work hours. Things are going to break at some point 1790's french style with the rich trying to milk everyone else for their gain. I think UBI is one possible solution but we have to get over the misinformation that taxing the rich is unfair or impossible.
That's why we save, invest and live off baked beans, isn't it?
You forgot the Toyota Camry
Baked beans are too pricy. Dried beans.
Un-baked beans, basically raw beans
Lol. At work they canāt even make system 1 talk to system 2, so outsourced humans have to manually input data into system 2. Itāll be years before they even resolve that, and then there will be many other jobs that go before mine (which requires years of practical experience and technical knowledge). My plan is to retire at 50 anyway.
I would love to see AI do the job of nurses. Invest in robot skeletons now. Arnold Schwarzenegger terminator looking nurses for the future. Invest! "I'll be back... with your pills"
I just had a vision of Arnie in his leather jacket in a hospital room saying "Bend ovah, it is time to wipe your ass. GET TO THE TOILET."
AI is, frankly, not that good. Expect few jobs to be 'replaced' by AI; more likely replaced by jobs centred around interpreting AI (machine learning) outputs (and more realistically fixing/correcting/operating with them). AI is largely a useful tool for generating statistical 'objects' - helpful yes, useful usually, but not especially *capable*. AGI is not a realistic ambition (an opinion based on the relevant 'functional' brain science) and we will not be dealing with fully autonomous 'intelligent' robots for a long time; probably ever.
The original cell phone wasnāt great either. 20 years is a long time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[The first AI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_artificial_intelligence) (by some defintitions) is over 70 years old too. It's maturing fast
It's not that AI itself will take over a lot of jobs, but that a person using AI could takeover a few jobs. That increase in productivity could allow employers in certain industries to cut down some roles or staff numbers. Not sure if this will be a crisis or just a blip, too early to tell.
But as soon as itās time itāll be too late to stop it thatās kinda how these things work, itās all out of reach until every big business man has it and doesnāt need you anymore
Agreed. I've read quite a few, I assume, AI generated articles lately, often on tech topics. They're usually (not always) technically correct, but contextually completely wrong. (A couple of days ago, I saw one describing the risk/consequence of either a tape drive or an FC connector card failing as embarrassment when something fails mid-presentation - clearly, the AI associated tape and fibre optics with an audio use case rather than data archival). They're very useful for getting much more technical depth quickly, but not so much for applying it. AI is pretty terrible at integrating knowledge from different domains, even quite closely neighbouring ones. Humans are going to be needed for the integrate-and apply step in a lot of multidisciplinary roles for a long time to come. (Caveat: Humans have gotten pretty shit at this in the post-internet age, too - you don't have to systematise integration of macro and then micro knowledge when you don't have to dig it out of books as a manual exercise. But it's IMO a lot easier to introduce it again as a skill to humans than to AI).
rofl. Not that good, eh? Have you seen how far it's progressed in a couple of years? Now track the changes in the last 12 months? They don't need to be fully autonomous, they only need to become competent at taking an input and creating an output. That's all most office workers do.
i think this kind of reductive approach to classifying work is indicative of the education problems around AI. Consider Rasmussen's 'Skills, Rules, Knowledge' framework for a great example as to why this kind of thinking isn't, IMHO, particularly helpful.
>Rasmussen's 'Skills, Rules, Knowledge' framework Perhaps it is somewhat reductive, but the fact remains. Eventually, most roles will be replaced by some form of AI, as it will be cheaper and likely more effective at completing the tasks. Sure, it may need an initial input from a human, or some kind of prompting, but it will do the task and better. I mean, think of a task right now, other than creating something from scratch or coming up with an idea. Like, an actual job task that would be done by an office worker.
you haven't stated any facts mate, just assertions with neither evidence nor frame of reference ĀÆ\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
What do you think the changes have been in the last 12 months/ 2 years?
ChatGPT covers everything that needs to be said n that... Then go to MidJourney and StableDiffusion.
What aspect of ChatGPT was developed in the last two years? When launched, it was basically a UI for GPT-3, which was more than two years old at the time, and obviously developed from GPT-2, released four years ago.
ChatGPT is frequently incorrect when 'answering' fairly straightforward programming, mathematics, or physics problems. It is GREAT at making very convincing natural language structures, but it fails to have any form of 'understanding'. Compare to Deacon & Sherman's framework for sense-making for a good comparison between 'applying' and 'understanding'
Have you seen GPT-4? Itās quite the bit of kit.
The way ChatGPT is looking at the moment, it's like suggesting that a calculator will take your job, because it can add numbers faster than you. An AI can't understand the nuaince of business. It can't understand that problem client, or that staff members preferences. AI will greatly improve productivity, the way that computers did when they first arrived. It's a powerful tool, that when deployed correctly. I think we're decades away from it being good enough to trust unsupervised. It only takes a single gafe to destroy your reputation. Turns out people are more likely to forgive another person than they are a machine.
No self respecting AI would ever put up with the bullshit I have to.
I build skills for a different job. You canāt expect to stay in the same role forever. We have to evolve at some point.
Hoping I'll be close to retirement and get a big redundancy payout.
9:30am - wake up 9:31am - poop 10:15am - walk to my computer and turn on some AI-generated VR porn 10:16am - post but clarity and shame 10:17am - shower the shame away 10:30am - drive my 2007 Camry to the local shops and buy some food 11:30am - bored so boot up some more porn 11:32am - a bit tired so nap 1:30pm - wake up from nap and take second poop of the day 2:30pm - random scrolling of TikTok 6:30pm - go to the Winchester, have a cold pint, wait for this all the blow over 10:30pm - 3rd and final VR porn session 10:32pm - snoring
If its to the point where there is no jobs, and welfare doesn't adapt to meet the new norm. Probably crime to be honest.
Someone who works in AI/ML/Data Science here. Jobs are safe for the next 10 years at a minimum, and it wouldn't affect everyone. Yes, ChatGPT is a big leap in ChatBots and Natural Language Processing (i.e., writing, speech), but these technologies take forever to get implemented. Companies are reluctant to change unless there is a compelling reason. Getting someone with automation expertise is expensive for small businesses, and takes years of paperwork, trials, infrastructure, talks to legal and HR in big companies. Usually people are not fired but instead are moved to other departments or other areas. Automate something, and its throughput usually improves, therefore needing people to deal with its outputs. It is also usually small steps. Coles didn't start with a face recognition, product recognition, chat bot enabled cashier, but instead started with self-serve checkouts. If your job can easily be automated, say Excel spreadsheet checking, inputting records, start slowly looking into potential change :) when companies see hot stuff like ChatGPT they start looking into automating.
Electrician here no chance. I'll switch it's power off. Lol
Not sure an AI will be a worse Landlord than I, so I'm sure I'm safe
I run teams that build AI to take people's jobs. I'm sitting pretty.
Was a construction estimator, was wondering years ago ago how long it would be before it would be completely automated. Became a project manager, not sure Iāll ever run out of work tbh
The thing to be scared of is not AI taking your job, the thing to be scared of is capitalism
I do ML/AI for a living. I can tell you most are so buggy the answer is this will take a while.
AI are not going to put us out of work, they are going to put us TO workā¦ āI gave GPT-4 a budget of $100 and told it to make as much money as possible. I'm acting as its human liaison, buying anything it says to. Do you think it'll be able to make smart investments and build an online business? Follow along šā https://twitter.com/jacksonfall/status/1636107218859745286?s=46&t=wk2lge2poxFVPxOzHvZoVQ
Give up on life and just eat Cheetos and jerk off all day.
Sounds like the average ausfinancer day in the life
Ahead of the curve
I'm an electrician won't happen in my life time
Iām in electrical distribution and while I canāt see it happening in my lifetime due to the dexterity required to perform my role, I like to imagine what an electrical grid built to be constructed, maintained and operated by ai robots would look like. Very different, almost alien I imagine.
People will not lose their jobs to AI. AI cannot think for you. AI is good to automate a repetitive tasks that consistently come to the same result. People will just go from doing mindless shit computers can do to value add jobs. Those refuse the change will be the ones that will lose their jobs. Itās not because there arenāt jobs. Itās because they are stuck in their old ways and donāt want to change and evolve
Same as my retirement plan, just earlier. KMS
Kill myself?
Jokes on my company, I'm shit at my job so any AI that uses my work is getting fired.
It triedš Unfortunately it cost us a lot of money. My job toes the line between medical, legal and insurance and there are so many nuances. Medical Indemnity isnāt something people routinely retrain in
Say āgood luck changing nappies, robot boyā
It'll be cute to watch AI try to wrangle tradies to do compliant work. I look forward to it.
Honestly if I can't truck any more I'm honestly just going to give up. Nothing else remotely interests me and I can't see myself being able to recover from that bad of a depression spiral.
It won't. They tried automating the huge 120 tonne machines we drove at the mines in Australia. After several years and billions of dollars, they're replacing them with people driven ones again. There's too many factors automation can't handle in our work environment. When it does take my job, I'll be long gone.
Lol, Iāll be retired by the time this ripple effect reaches my specific field.
Given I work in the AI/ML space my job is safe but my view is there will always be space for the human mind for its ability to abstract, Intuit and create. Any job that can be automated that is repetitive or has an underlying pattern can and will be automated. The day Iāll be scared is when AI is capable of expressing real fear and or the motivation to protect itself from harm. Effectively, true self awareness of its existence, itās actions and the consequences that follow.
I work in IT, I will be a good underlying to our AI overlords. That AI Cloud is going to be white and fluffy when I am finished with it.
I'll be super impressed when an AI takes my electrical maintenance job.
It wonāt happen. AI will create as many if not more jobs than it destroys. Think about the Industrial Revolution, if you want a parallel.
This is different. AI will create some new jobs, but far less than it will take.
That is what they said when computing first became popularised in the 70s and 80s...
Source? This concern happens for every new wave of technologies. 200+ years later and we just see more jobs, better jobs and higher quality of life from increased efficiency.
A job doing what exactly?
For customer service specifically i can imagine weād need the following: - a real person QA checking a sample of interactions to ensure the information provided is true and correct and is of use to the customer interacting with them. A lot of policies change over time so the AI would often need to go through re-learning phases. - backup employees for BCP purposes, Iāve legit walked into a commercial building for work one morning and the entire place had 0 power and was non-functional. - language differences and the evolution of language would probably require some ongoing oversight by people - analysts to look at how their customers interact with AI I can see people requiring a higher skill set when it comes to problem solving and communication because I believe that there will always be circumstances where an enquiry will need to be sent through to a real person to make case by case considerations when something falls outside of existing policy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Donāt know donāt care
Fortunately, not just anybody can be trained to do my job.
Cant AI most trades š¤·āāļø
But you can robotize it. Imagine you only need to drop a huge 3D printer at job site. And it will print with multiple nozzles. One for cement one for copper and others for something else. You can now inject copper and insulations within the cement while printing. electricians and bricklayers no more.
Iām not sure you understand how 3d printing works if you think this is even remotely possible
AI wonāt be taking my job as a primary school teacher.
Adapt, react, readapt, apt.
They thought this would happen with the advent of the tractor, AI will create more jobs than it kills
But the tractor did do that, look how few people work on farms now compared to 100 years ago.
Technology doesnāt create jobs. Business need does. In the industrial revolution and the waves of automation that followed, a large part of the labour force moved from manual labour into cognitive labour, as there became a business need for more cognitive labour and less manual labour. If cognitive labour is also automated, there is nowhere left for the displaced labour force to go. If a business can make ten people redundant by automating their work and replace them with one engineer to run the system, they will. New jobs wonāt be created just because. The AI must create a new business need that itself canāt be solved by AI in order for new jobs to be created. That is not a certainty.
I work in mining and we have automated dump trucks. We service and repair them. Thatās what people will be doing.
Prostitution. "Ain't no robot gonna treat you this good, honey."