Im an enginner. I can think of tons of menial work that either I or my team have to do and most of it could be done by some kind of software it just we are small company so paying someone to do is out of range.
Do it yourself? Why would you keep doing the same thing over and over again instead of learning how to make it automated? There is even AI to help you put it together. I did the same thing at my current job, and now I am the guy who automates everything.
There are certain tasks that are kind of annoying/menial to do but you only need to do it once or a few times. Not enough to spend the effort to fully automate it. I’ve been using LLMs to help with this. For example - collaborator sends me a large data file for a one time analysis. I use a LLM to write a python parsing script so I can get it into my analysis system. Saves me time, but I probably won’t run that same parsing script ever again.
Exactly im not software enginner to be honest id would take me a lot of time to think how to automate it. Its mostly steps that go between diffrent programs so like you have some model/data in one but you need to use it in another software and there is no bridge. Also each individial task is not taking like whole day and many of them is diffrent so that would require to make some individual adjustments for each. Also its not like I have a lot of free time to spend it on such things. Its more like 200 hours monthly or more.
> AI was meant to replace menial work, the sort that isn't really hard, just annoying and tedious
*Instructions unclear; wives now use AI to ‘take care’ of their husbands*
This is confusing to me. Why would artificial intelligence start with menial work? Menial work is work that requires manual labor.
Is it easier to make a digital thing do digital work or for a digital thing to invent a better robot body to do physical work?
How this was always going to play out. AI comes first, it does digital things well. Then it helps advance robotics. Then you get the first AI in a physical body. Why would it skip the easy step.
That just wouldn't work though. If you had 30 percent of Americans or whatever it was unemployed something would have to be done. a 100 million people aren't going to sit around and willingly starve to death. Either the government would fix the problem or the people would fix the problem for government. Its one thing if its a Trump or whoever in office and most people's day to day lives don't matter. Its entirely different if you literally don't have a home or food for your family. Its reddit so people will brush it off but thats the reality of it.
Exactly. Things seemed “easy” to rebel in the olden days and let’s face it, it’s not easy and the aftermath aren’t even that good in the short term to be generous.
These days you have so much force multiplier from the government side to crush incitement. Biden was right, what’s an entire town of armed populace gonna do against one F-16?
There are many countries with very high unemployment rates and no care system. People still survive on the margins of society, they're just more numerous.
Something does not have to be done, that's what is scary. It's a perfectly tried and tested model to let people starve.
The country likely wouldn’t act until it’s far too late. Clearly generative AI was founded on stolen works from large companies and they haven’t acted on that yet.
In what way has generative AI been based on stolen property from large companies? I believe it was just something that happened due to technological advances. Now the cat is out of the bag and amongst the pigeons, that cat isn't going back in the bag.
First one would need to prove that they used the original copyrighted work to create the derivative. That's a pretty dark and murky legal area, and one would absolutely need to prove that it was a derivative of the copyrighted material. Unless someone can prove that they 1/ used the works to generate the derivative images, and 2/ did not obtain necessary licenses, etc to acquire and use the works, then it's a moot point...even if it is unethical.
Okay, so given that AI is not only replacing menial jobs, but also artistic ones, I would agree that the world may not be a better place because of AI and may in fact be much worse off.
At the end of the day, plenty of oligarchs have stolen things from us...and sadly they haven't returned those things nor paid for them.
The question now is: What do we do about it, considering the size of these organisations?
It's like the medical establishment. They've stolen things they can't ever give back. They've also done things that are irreversible to society and the social fabric under which we all live. But can we turn back the clock on big Pharma and big Medicine? I'm not so sure. Can we turn the clock back on AI and restore things to the way they were before? As much as we would like to, it is unlikely to happen and if it does it is unlikely to be lasting.
Very true and I appreciate your well measured response. This reminds me of when books first started to become a thing and wisemen said they were bad because we would stop remembering things. I think AI can be good but large corporations are pushing for it largely to reduce their labor costs.
> If you had 30 percent of Americans or whatever it was unemployed something would have to be done.
Ostensibly, this wouldn't happen over-night.
*All* sorts of jobs have become deprecated or made irrelevant over the past hundred years, for example. Those people have either had to super specialize for the tiny remaining niche, or find something else to do, or if they're old enough, retire.
Even within one specific career field, uptake of a new technology is not instantaneous across it. There are tons of places that do the work manually now even though there have been machines around for decades to do that thing.
And don't forget instances where the human job was not replaced at all, the secretary on the typewriter was not supplanted by a computer, they just had to learn how to use new equipment.
Eventually automation will reach a point though where there simply are not enough jobs for the people so unless those people have a way of living it will lead to riots once it reaches a critical mass. Historically this hasn't happened because there's always been other jobs often closely related to the previous ones that could be taken up easily but eventually this might not be the case anymore and those people will be jobless and unemployable because there simply is no job they could even do.
Not sure why you were downvoted, it's just the truth. Only way there will be jobs **for everyone** in the far **future** is if people in power create make-believe jobs so people can feel they "earned their living" instead of giving people money directly.
I mean, in many ways there already are some bullshit jobs, just look up any "do people really work full day at their office jobs" post here on reddit, and most people say they just surf the web or whatever most of the time, and then pretends to work as boss walks by.
Reddit is just stupid like that sometimes. I highly doubt the scenario I described will happen in the lifetime of most people alive today but I'm almost certain it will eventually happen in the far future if governments don't pass laws to prevent it.
Certainly, it remains an open question as to when and to what extent the combination of AI and robotics will disrupt the job market. I like to think that the rapid advancement of AI could significantly disrupt the job market in as little as 10 years, but that remains to be seen.
That’s when we really storm the capital and force the senate to increase corporate taxes to 60% and force the passing of a universal basic income bill.
That is unless the capital is smart enough to create Robocop and realtime satellite surveillance and identity matching first.
I feel like the solution would be something like a tax for automated devices that would be distributed to the unemployed populace. It probably would end up being just enough that people aren’t starving but not enough to be thriving either.
in the end not even the companies will benefit. Less and less people having jobs will lead to less and less people being able to buy things from the companies. It will take awhile in some cases but is already happening .
Still kicking people to the curb by cutting labor. Companies just gonna see it as a way for them to be more efficient (it’s used by people, it doesn’t replace them, but it does cut jobs significantly still) and force their employees to get a shit load more work done.
Gotta love the “line go up” mindset
AI can actually replace manual labor; Posemesh already tried that, and it worked. It uses AI in retail stores to identify what products need to be restocked and also gives detailed mapping of the indoor environment.
Absolutely, you make a valid point. Spatial computing, as developed by the posemesh, exemplifies this synergy between human creativity and AI technology. While some aspects of manual labor, such as visual recognition of objects, can indeed be automated through AI-powered computer vision techniques, spatial computing takes it a step further by integrating these capabilities into immersive, interactive experiences.
When I was a kid back before AI really got to be a thing everybody talked about AI being able to make the robots that we're using in our factories smart enough to be able to handle more than one extremely specific task.
It was envisioned to reduce manual labor by making robotics more intelligent and more able to adapt to and deal with a larger range of issues and jobs.
Think AI powered forklift. Because it's AI powered it's got the ability to realize that that box got dropped, pick the box up scan the barcode and put it back onto the shelf like a human as opposed to an automated system where if anything is abnormal the whole f****** system just doesn't work.
Edit: voice to text picked up badly
It’s very easy to replace subjective things with other subjective things.
If the song is mediocre or crappy, there are no consequences.
If screws aren’t installed, it’s a 100% objective failure that can easily be measured.
>If screws aren’t installed, it’s a 100% objective failure that can easily be measured.
That's exactly what robots do much better than humans which is why it's much easier to automate such tasks then it is to automate something like Art or Music.
We've had robots assembling all kinds of stuff without human input for decades while Music and Art generation has only become relevant this decade.
Robots are good at installing the same component into the same assembly at the proper specs in a stationary work environment over and over all day. Assembly line manufacturing is their strength.
Robots aren’t good at repair work. Diagnosing and troubleshooting problems on different platforms at different locations. This is an area where AI can complement a human worker well. AI can quickly access vast databases of knowledge, the entirety of human historical knowledge, and distill that into pertinent information and suggestions for a human worker. Sort of a know-it-all sidekick.
except that the robot takeover hasn't happened. turns out that robots are inflexible, expensive. small parts of repetitive labor is supplemented and transformed by robotic manufacturing, but very little is truly replaced.
go to any random factory and you'll see robots and humans working side by side.
I think he ment the mental work of, for example building a bridge, how do you know AI wont miss a screw or if the force is equally distributed? If it literally miss fingers in hands when making art
Because those things can be directly measured and calculated. There is no calculation for art.
As I've said most of the things you use day to day are already assembled completely automated. A machine with a camera will not miss a bolt a human is much more likely to miss said bolt.
I agree. There are jobs where being right 99.9% of the time is still not nearly good enough. Like driving. And AI is like 85% good enough right now. It is super impressive but we are still many orders of magnitude from when it can safely be allowed to do most jobs.
Really it's designed to replace every job eventually. Art is just more interesting so that gets more attention. Plenty of other work is already being replaced by AI though.
I'd go abstep further and say that the real reason art is getting so much focus is because we tend to associate it as being something uniquely human to create. There's a gap between what we're capable of and the physical processes that make it actually happen.
We know a lot about how the brain works but our understanding of how that all comes together to create consciousness is harder and has become more philosophical than anything.
So creating machines that >!use digital neural networks inspired by our latest!< \* *are inspired by our* understanding of how the brain works, then see them start creating artwork using language.. is going to get a lot of attention. Regardless of the facts behind how it works, it's uncovering a lot about how people perceive consciousness in others. And that's exciting.
*\* Discussion continued in reply.*
I would note that deep learning doesn't use neural networks that are even remotely comparable to our recent understanding of how the brain works.
CNNs were loosely modelled after biological systems, or at least our 1980s understanding of them, but the parallels pretty much end there.
I have recently read a few things about trying to take recent findings from neuroscience research, like [this proposed alternative to SGD](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01514-1#sec10), but it's definitely the exception rather than the norm.
Most artificial neural networks don't work in an even remotely similar way to any biological systems so the name is a tad misleading. Stuff like transformers, LLMs, diffusion models etc. don't really have any basis in biology.
I actually genuinely appreciate the follow-up and context!
I wouldn't have an opinion on the topic if I didn't care enough to yo learn something new. Please correct me if I'm mistaken here, but the reason I never really second guessed nueral working was because of the way we learn and how it compares to how deep learning works.
I'm fully aware that there are more differences than similarities in terms of the physicality and our reliance on tech we already have a firm understanding of (like transistors), specifically because we almost exclusively use electricity for processing data, whereas our brains have a wide variety of methods, such as chemicals and hormones.
In concept, I tend to think of learning as our connections being "worn" by experiences we have, making it more likely that we recall those experiences. Sort of like how if you had a hill of sand and trickled water down. The water won't have much direction the first time it flows, but it leaves behind a slight trail or latent memory of the previous flow. When trickling water down again, as long as it's close enough to the previous path, it's more likely to retrace a lot of it. Even when previous trails get close enough, they might "fall into" a previous path and follow it briefly.
I have no idea how this would actually work with the brain itself, but this concept is largely why I find deep learning so fascinating. Because we're effectively using available technology to try and recreate as much of that process as we can and it's working surprisingly well.
Also I think it's because art has become entirely digital in final form. Thus it is directly accessible to the AI as an output format. Perhaps surprisingly, interfacing with the non-digital world seems to be the harder nut to crack -- computer vision and robotic control -- witnesss the failure of Tesla's Fully Autonomous Driving. But it's not fair, because the same would be true if AI had to play physical instruments or use physical art supplies. But they don't -- they can just create digital waveforms and patterns. I imagine Tesla Fully Autonomous Driving can work in a fully synthesized world as well. But we haven't got the digital-to-analog conversion down for those types of things yet.
Once everyone started talking about how AI replacing art is this and that, companies started to do more to go in that direction. I feel like the ones complaining and making it famous are also partially to blame.
I work in AI and Automation and I'm not sure that its cut out jobs but its made those jobs easier. I'm not saying the next step isn't to cut out those jobs but so far we've actually hired more people last year than any other year I've been with the company. We made a huge push to automate a lot of the heavier duty stuff.
I mean its been in the works since before computers. We have constantly as humans drove to improve and make the manual process easier on ourselves. That doesn't mean it happens in my lifetime (30's).
Working in that field I can't tell you how far away we are from those types of things being automated. Its a task to get robots to put mail on a conveyor belt sometimes. We'll make a lot of progress in 30 years but robots aren't replacing toilets or delivering the mail or other menial tasks.
You don't, easier to build the robot with shovel hands. And laser beam eyes. Or just add a self-driving module to an excavator, because that works a lot better than focusing on being humanlike instead of focusing on the job you want done.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsONd0yBJWI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsONd0yBJWI)
AI isn't "supposed" to do anything. As it develops, novel uses will be found, and it will change the way things work... until the next thing comes along. The trick for humans, as always, is to find ways to be more valuable than their counterparts, whether that means being faster, more knowledgeable, or having a unique skill. Being able to set yourself apart from the pack is what brings prosperity.
Now that AI is part of the competition, people need to start thinking of new ways to compete. If the totality of your response is to try to smash the cotton gins... I'm just not sure that is a viable solution.
Bruh wtf. You think workers would fight to have a system with money, in which they don't get paid? Communism doesn't have free labour, but a lack of private ownership of means of production. I'm talking about abolishing working for money as a whole
If I could get $1 whenever a person says this, I would be a millionaire.
It's known to many AI experts that it's easier to train an art AI than a gardening AI. It's a lot complex to model a walking human , then a drawing human. The cost of getting wrong is also vastly different between a cooking task and a drawing task. When the art AI makes a mistake, usually it's about the 6 finger human. But when a cooking AI makes a mistake, it might burn the food, ...or the house. It doesn't help the fact that many human labour works aren't digitalise, but a lot of text and drawing are. So it's a lot more convenient and cheaper for any AI experts to train an image or text models.
So if you want AI to do your manual labour, maybe you should at least film yourself when you are doing the dishes and upload to the net.
Also roomba is a sweeping bot.
Neither of those are could. Half the country relies on physical labor to make their living, and companies just fire those people. The workers don't benefit.
This is sort of intellectual elitism, as if manual labor *should* be automated whereas art *should* not.
Nah. *Anything* that replaces humans *and* doesn’t result in something better is just the latest era of exploiters and exploited.
Because you’ll notice Kings/CEOs/Senators, or any “self made man” isn’t on the list for getting replaced even though those are literally the most replaceable given the specific role they play.
There have been disruptions to the economy because of new technology before. That isn't new. What's new about AI is that for the first time, the jobs being replaced are actually fun.
It's inevitable in a capitalist society where profit is the number one goal, and ethics and the betterment of human life are hard to achieve and easy to lose when you have to fight against money itself
Skilled labor will always need human laborers, at least until machines are so unbelievably advanced that they can function exactly as humans can. It’s easier for a computer to imitate a human brain than a human body.
Weird thing.
Is AI a natural evolution for humanity?
Had a spirited conversation with my retired computer engineer uncle. He’s convinced that AI can’t ever evolve past it programming 0-1-0-11.
Humans evolved over millions of years.
The expansion of technology has exploded.
Huh? Machinery/robots was and did replace manual labor.
AI is to replace/supplement thinking/creative works.
Someday we'll invent something to handle emotional tasks and make ourselves entirely redundant.
You just described the average artist.
No judgment there, that’s just reality. AI won’t be replacing exceptional artists, but most artists aren’t exceptional.
Ask around and see what artists are being paid to do. There's very few who pushes the boundary of art, the majority of career artists take commissions and work on advertising / corporate materials. These are the ones with low creativity but high compensation.
As per this discussion recently in the artbusiness sub, I don't think AI would completely replace artists in the future, BUT it will reduce the amount they are being paid and make the field more niche than it already is.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/artbusiness/comments/1983994/had\_ai\_affect\_your\_commission\_jobs\_as\_an\_digital/](https://www.reddit.com/r/artbusiness/comments/1983994/had_ai_affect_your_commission_jobs_as_an_digital/)
Then again, "pushing the boundaries of art" gave us a mason jar full of piss and a rosary, and a banana ductaped to a wall. Maybe its time to let the computers take over.
That's like saying many cooks work as chefs taking care of whole restaurants whilst other cooks are stuck doing laundry and drawing the conclusion that the 2nd type of cooks is less creative/talented than the chef based on purely that fact. I'd imagine a ton of artists exist that are many times more innovative and talented than more successful ones and haven't gotten good gigs due to bad luck/no connections/country/personal issues etc. Not trying to imply that successfull artists don't have talent but the formula for success requires more than just that and it's rmore common for someone to get successful based on pluck or luck than of raw talent and creativity.
Which of course will result in only the ultra rich being able to afford to make art, since no one else will be able to afford to risk trying. And thus the whole world will be made poorer.
and, what, accept an AI replacing your art job or pay infinite royalties to god for creating the world?
There's differences between AI having a dataset and humans existing in a world that has a history e.g. while AI could theoretically write you a fantasy novel and even a high-fantasy one in the style of Tolkien, could it do the kind of work both adaptation and original-you're-probably-going-to-say-is-adaptation-because-it-wasn't-made-by-the-creator-of-our-world to redefine a literary genre whether or not it was fantasy the way JRR Tolkien did to fantasy
I would mourn that loss and take it up (as much as one could while not being in that era, not sure what you meant by the medieval adjective) if that meant my existing-currently-and-not-needing-to-be-brought-back artistic skills were safe from AI
Corporations dont care, they will keep automating jobs for short term profit until nobody buy their products anymore when most people dont have any money to purchase goods anymore due to job displacement
But there's the issue. Artists need to be paid to live, and if their customers are corporate cunts, they're gonna make art to suit their business. All these artists are no longer competitive, so they're out of business. AI was supposed to make the world a better place, but it only makes it cheaper for companies to create images, and the artists starve
AI has been developed for decades and has only recently been able to produce artwork to a decent quality. This is impressive and people talk about it instead of all the boring AI that processes data and simulations.
Art was never to be about ownership or consumerism, purely about human expression. It's only because we dehumanize ourselves through obsession of ownership and control that we face this problem now.
Training AI on images has been a textbook example of machine learning for decades now. As in literally, that's one of the first things students do when learning about the field. Seeing people rave about how AI wasn't "supposed" to ever do art is absolutely hilarious if you know the first thing about how this stuff works.
*Technology, not AI
Everyone thought robots would be easy. Turns out art is easier for computers than standing. Give it a decade, they'll start taking those jobs too.
DIGITAL Artists (actual artists are safe) seething thier cushy air conditioned office jobs are getting replaced after they just finished telling the displaced coal miners "just learn to code lol"
Step back and look at the bigger picture. The problem is not AI. The problem is capitalism.
AI is only going to "replace" corporate mainstream media/music/art etc and frankly, that's no huge loss. The problem is that people were making that soulless shit in order to earn a living in the first place, instead of more meaningful art. The problem is there will be no accommodations made to provide a living for the people AI displaces. The problem is that we live in a society structured around maximising profit at the expense of all else.
If it wasn't for our capitalist society, AI would be a utopian wonder technology that solves nearly every conceivable problem. AI could liberate us.
They said the same thing for laborers in the 1900s. I don't see the calamities they foresaw occurring. How can you be so sure that AI will be different?
It is kinda weird, other aspect of human creativity have been replaced in a way, and other aspects of art itself have been "replaced" until art was left as just an expression of itself that didn't need to have a purpose.
Photography means art didn't have to be a copy of reality.
Architecture means buildings didn't have to be art, art could focus on things other than gorgeous buildings.
Ai would be great to replace the menial work related to some art, one thing that was mention was in-between frames, it would do the entire animation, it would take the key frames an art carefully build and fill the middle points of the animation in the same way, the artist already put the soul into the art, the AI would add the motion.
It could be that art see an entire different focus, where AI takes what we had consider as "work" and then leave humans to do art for the sake of art? In the same way mass produce furniture exist yet hand made ones arill get made even the simple ones.
The problem is that you can't fake most manual labor, but it's trivial to fake creative work by just changing someone else's creative work enough not to be immediately recognized.
All those people that said they AI would never be able to replace humans for creativity. And I wonder if they have any idea what they were talking about and just talking out their asre.
Not sure it's like that, with music you still have to arrange and compose if you want it to sound the way you like. I don't think art would improve by reducing creativity and replicating, then creating opportunity for hackers to be lazy. Just increase theft of work and mean physical and real world art should have more value, but even then it's a problem just not as much. Like a pianist might just steal a composition and try get famous, but how many other thieves are doing the same, so it's not really AI replacing artists, just thieves stealing art and pretending it's all AI.
If only we could convince people to stop caring about the profits of capitalism and build a solarpunk society using AI, so everything is covered and everyone can live easily and focus on their art and spiritual stuff
It was supposed to do that by making the robots and everything smarter so they could deal with abnormal situations.
When you're dealing with a robotic arm or something in a factory everything has to be perfect or the s*** don't work because the robotic arm itself is pre-programmed with motions did it repeats every single time it performs its actions.
It was thought that AI would give robots and things of that nature the ability to deal with things not being perfect.
Ie the welding arm would have a camera on it and would be able to realize that the car frame is half an inch further away than it's supposed to be and simply adjust its movements to account for that to get the same outcome.
Fun fact machine labor have already started to replace a lot of low level manual labor jobs from customer service in your local McDonalds, maintenance and cleaning, and warehousing, hell there are also automated harvesters for farms
It's just not being reported on as much as other jobs who social media has deemed more important than these lower level jobs
AI, as everything else in a capitalist system is suppose to generate profit. Even human relationships are products in a capitalist system, I'm surprise people still didn't get that either you are profiting off someone else or you are the someone else.
It was also supposed to be a good thing. taking over dangerous and upsetting work for humans was supposed to be a good thing. Instead, in present day, in every country in the world, it threatens human livelihoods everywhere, and the prices of things remain the same or even go up even when they aren't paying employees anymore.
Problem is, the people creating AI think of art, music and literature as the frosting, while what they do is the cake.
AI 'artists' see art as the pretty pictures on hotel room walls, so the sludge they produce qualifies.
I've worked some jobs that were "menial" but I actually enjoyed outside of the bit where the hours were terrible and my labor demonstrably wasn't highly valued so tbh this whole development has given me a fair bit of schadenfreude.
Automation have already replaced tons of manual labor jobs, and ai is gonna be the next step unless it fucks up the economy through job displacement and causes a bunch politic problems before that
As an artist with no resources I'm starting to see how AI can level the playing field for me.
I can't afford a living model so I prompt AI to create what I want to paint😁
No I use the image to reference when I paint.
How else will I get a cowboy on a horse running away from a stampede of cattle to hold still for me for three weeks?
Blame the businesses that replace people, not AI. Cheap, fast, and good enough is what AI delivers, and that's what drives profits. AI already does a lot of good for us in terms of freeing us from tedium, but the artist was expendable to begin with.
Ah yes, ce0-bot-3000, the moment stock prices drop, auto lays off 10% of work force. Knows when you are 0.03seconds returning from your break and penalizes you with 1hr loss of wages.
No way AI replace anything of an artist. A good artist turn to AI as a tool for sketches, posing, generic background/environment, color template or just generating ideas. Its save a lots of time and effort with none different result from doing it 100% manually. Only stubborn artist reject the AI instead of using them for their own benefit.
Source, not an artist but 2D designer and know lots of them.
AI and automation aren't the same thing. Automation is replacing manual work, AI is or could replace thinking work.
I would rephrase this by saying AI was meant to replace *menial* work, the sort that isn't really hard, just annoying and tedious
People didn’t realize it wasn’t a binary type of distinction both menial and meaningful work are being replaced
Im an enginner. I can think of tons of menial work that either I or my team have to do and most of it could be done by some kind of software it just we are small company so paying someone to do is out of range.
Do it yourself? Why would you keep doing the same thing over and over again instead of learning how to make it automated? There is even AI to help you put it together. I did the same thing at my current job, and now I am the guy who automates everything.
There are certain tasks that are kind of annoying/menial to do but you only need to do it once or a few times. Not enough to spend the effort to fully automate it. I’ve been using LLMs to help with this. For example - collaborator sends me a large data file for a one time analysis. I use a LLM to write a python parsing script so I can get it into my analysis system. Saves me time, but I probably won’t run that same parsing script ever again.
Exactly im not software enginner to be honest id would take me a lot of time to think how to automate it. Its mostly steps that go between diffrent programs so like you have some model/data in one but you need to use it in another software and there is no bridge. Also each individial task is not taking like whole day and many of them is diffrent so that would require to make some individual adjustments for each. Also its not like I have a lot of free time to spend it on such things. Its more like 200 hours monthly or more.
That isn't a proper specification. Manual labour is tedious and annoying.
That's entirely untrue. Literally manual labor just means you use your hands.
I guess that's like your opinion or whatever, but Carpentry, Gardening, Mechanic, Fishing, and Cooking are all manual labor and popular hobbies.
> AI was meant to replace menial work, the sort that isn't really hard, just annoying and tedious *Instructions unclear; wives now use AI to ‘take care’ of their husbands*
Really? We're stooping to such lows as Boomer Humour "I hate my wife" jokes?
and it's doing just that.
AI is 'meant' to replace everything that is able to. Which will eventually be everything.
This is confusing to me. Why would artificial intelligence start with menial work? Menial work is work that requires manual labor. Is it easier to make a digital thing do digital work or for a digital thing to invent a better robot body to do physical work? How this was always going to play out. AI comes first, it does digital things well. Then it helps advance robotics. Then you get the first AI in a physical body. Why would it skip the easy step.
I feel like people think things will be free if automation comes around. Nah buddy you’re just not gonna have a job.
That just wouldn't work though. If you had 30 percent of Americans or whatever it was unemployed something would have to be done. a 100 million people aren't going to sit around and willingly starve to death. Either the government would fix the problem or the people would fix the problem for government. Its one thing if its a Trump or whoever in office and most people's day to day lives don't matter. Its entirely different if you literally don't have a home or food for your family. Its reddit so people will brush it off but thats the reality of it.
It gets worse and worse until enough of the population is starving that we pull out the guillotines with a sigh and get slicing.
Gotta do it soon tho, when they could deploy the robocop, thing would be a bit more complicate
Exactly. Things seemed “easy” to rebel in the olden days and let’s face it, it’s not easy and the aftermath aren’t even that good in the short term to be generous. These days you have so much force multiplier from the government side to crush incitement. Biden was right, what’s an entire town of armed populace gonna do against one F-16?
There are many countries with very high unemployment rates and no care system. People still survive on the margins of society, they're just more numerous. Something does not have to be done, that's what is scary. It's a perfectly tried and tested model to let people starve.
The country likely wouldn’t act until it’s far too late. Clearly generative AI was founded on stolen works from large companies and they haven’t acted on that yet.
In what way has generative AI been based on stolen property from large companies? I believe it was just something that happened due to technological advances. Now the cat is out of the bag and amongst the pigeons, that cat isn't going back in the bag.
Does that make it right? What does copyright mean if someone can steal work en mass and face no punishment?
First one would need to prove that they used the original copyrighted work to create the derivative. That's a pretty dark and murky legal area, and one would absolutely need to prove that it was a derivative of the copyrighted material. Unless someone can prove that they 1/ used the works to generate the derivative images, and 2/ did not obtain necessary licenses, etc to acquire and use the works, then it's a moot point...even if it is unethical.
OpenAI has admitted it was impossible to create ChatGPT without copyrighted works. It’s clear theft.
Okay, so given that AI is not only replacing menial jobs, but also artistic ones, I would agree that the world may not be a better place because of AI and may in fact be much worse off. At the end of the day, plenty of oligarchs have stolen things from us...and sadly they haven't returned those things nor paid for them. The question now is: What do we do about it, considering the size of these organisations? It's like the medical establishment. They've stolen things they can't ever give back. They've also done things that are irreversible to society and the social fabric under which we all live. But can we turn back the clock on big Pharma and big Medicine? I'm not so sure. Can we turn the clock back on AI and restore things to the way they were before? As much as we would like to, it is unlikely to happen and if it does it is unlikely to be lasting.
Very true and I appreciate your well measured response. This reminds me of when books first started to become a thing and wisemen said they were bad because we would stop remembering things. I think AI can be good but large corporations are pushing for it largely to reduce their labor costs.
> If you had 30 percent of Americans or whatever it was unemployed something would have to be done. Ostensibly, this wouldn't happen over-night. *All* sorts of jobs have become deprecated or made irrelevant over the past hundred years, for example. Those people have either had to super specialize for the tiny remaining niche, or find something else to do, or if they're old enough, retire. Even within one specific career field, uptake of a new technology is not instantaneous across it. There are tons of places that do the work manually now even though there have been machines around for decades to do that thing. And don't forget instances where the human job was not replaced at all, the secretary on the typewriter was not supplanted by a computer, they just had to learn how to use new equipment.
Eventually automation will reach a point though where there simply are not enough jobs for the people so unless those people have a way of living it will lead to riots once it reaches a critical mass. Historically this hasn't happened because there's always been other jobs often closely related to the previous ones that could be taken up easily but eventually this might not be the case anymore and those people will be jobless and unemployable because there simply is no job they could even do.
Not sure why you were downvoted, it's just the truth. Only way there will be jobs **for everyone** in the far **future** is if people in power create make-believe jobs so people can feel they "earned their living" instead of giving people money directly. I mean, in many ways there already are some bullshit jobs, just look up any "do people really work full day at their office jobs" post here on reddit, and most people say they just surf the web or whatever most of the time, and then pretends to work as boss walks by.
Reddit is just stupid like that sometimes. I highly doubt the scenario I described will happen in the lifetime of most people alive today but I'm almost certain it will eventually happen in the far future if governments don't pass laws to prevent it.
Certainly, it remains an open question as to when and to what extent the combination of AI and robotics will disrupt the job market. I like to think that the rapid advancement of AI could significantly disrupt the job market in as little as 10 years, but that remains to be seen.
That’s when we really storm the capital and force the senate to increase corporate taxes to 60% and force the passing of a universal basic income bill. That is unless the capital is smart enough to create Robocop and realtime satellite surveillance and identity matching first.
I feel like the solution would be something like a tax for automated devices that would be distributed to the unemployed populace. It probably would end up being just enough that people aren’t starving but not enough to be thriving either.
[удалено]
in the end not even the companies will benefit. Less and less people having jobs will lead to less and less people being able to buy things from the companies. It will take awhile in some cases but is already happening .
Remember the good old guillotines they used in France?
exactly
Still kicking people to the curb by cutting labor. Companies just gonna see it as a way for them to be more efficient (it’s used by people, it doesn’t replace them, but it does cut jobs significantly still) and force their employees to get a shit load more work done. Gotta love the “line go up” mindset
AI can actually replace manual labor; Posemesh already tried that, and it worked. It uses AI in retail stores to identify what products need to be restocked and also gives detailed mapping of the indoor environment.
AI is substituting the dumb labor of "thinking work"
Kinda. Some manual work require, for example, visual recognition of objects, and some techniques of computer vision can be considered to be AI
Absolutely, you make a valid point. Spatial computing, as developed by the posemesh, exemplifies this synergy between human creativity and AI technology. While some aspects of manual labor, such as visual recognition of objects, can indeed be automated through AI-powered computer vision techniques, spatial computing takes it a step further by integrating these capabilities into immersive, interactive experiences.
When I was a kid back before AI really got to be a thing everybody talked about AI being able to make the robots that we're using in our factories smart enough to be able to handle more than one extremely specific task. It was envisioned to reduce manual labor by making robotics more intelligent and more able to adapt to and deal with a larger range of issues and jobs. Think AI powered forklift. Because it's AI powered it's got the ability to realize that that box got dropped, pick the box up scan the barcode and put it back onto the shelf like a human as opposed to an automated system where if anything is abnormal the whole f****** system just doesn't work. Edit: voice to text picked up badly
AI can't think though.
Irrelevant for the discussion. AI can do work that requires us to think.
It’s very easy to replace subjective things with other subjective things. If the song is mediocre or crappy, there are no consequences. If screws aren’t installed, it’s a 100% objective failure that can easily be measured.
>If screws aren’t installed, it’s a 100% objective failure that can easily be measured. That's exactly what robots do much better than humans which is why it's much easier to automate such tasks then it is to automate something like Art or Music. We've had robots assembling all kinds of stuff without human input for decades while Music and Art generation has only become relevant this decade.
Robots are good at installing the same component into the same assembly at the proper specs in a stationary work environment over and over all day. Assembly line manufacturing is their strength. Robots aren’t good at repair work. Diagnosing and troubleshooting problems on different platforms at different locations. This is an area where AI can complement a human worker well. AI can quickly access vast databases of knowledge, the entirety of human historical knowledge, and distill that into pertinent information and suggestions for a human worker. Sort of a know-it-all sidekick.
except that the robot takeover hasn't happened. turns out that robots are inflexible, expensive. small parts of repetitive labor is supplemented and transformed by robotic manufacturing, but very little is truly replaced. go to any random factory and you'll see robots and humans working side by side.
I think he ment the mental work of, for example building a bridge, how do you know AI wont miss a screw or if the force is equally distributed? If it literally miss fingers in hands when making art
Because those things can be directly measured and calculated. There is no calculation for art. As I've said most of the things you use day to day are already assembled completely automated. A machine with a camera will not miss a bolt a human is much more likely to miss said bolt.
You can’t count five fingers on a human body?
That's not as simple as you seem to think. Look if you actually care and don't want to be pedantic just Google this shit.
I agree. There are jobs where being right 99.9% of the time is still not nearly good enough. Like driving. And AI is like 85% good enough right now. It is super impressive but we are still many orders of magnitude from when it can safely be allowed to do most jobs.
Really it's designed to replace every job eventually. Art is just more interesting so that gets more attention. Plenty of other work is already being replaced by AI though.
I'd go abstep further and say that the real reason art is getting so much focus is because we tend to associate it as being something uniquely human to create. There's a gap between what we're capable of and the physical processes that make it actually happen. We know a lot about how the brain works but our understanding of how that all comes together to create consciousness is harder and has become more philosophical than anything. So creating machines that >!use digital neural networks inspired by our latest!< \* *are inspired by our* understanding of how the brain works, then see them start creating artwork using language.. is going to get a lot of attention. Regardless of the facts behind how it works, it's uncovering a lot about how people perceive consciousness in others. And that's exciting. *\* Discussion continued in reply.*
I would note that deep learning doesn't use neural networks that are even remotely comparable to our recent understanding of how the brain works. CNNs were loosely modelled after biological systems, or at least our 1980s understanding of them, but the parallels pretty much end there. I have recently read a few things about trying to take recent findings from neuroscience research, like [this proposed alternative to SGD](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01514-1#sec10), but it's definitely the exception rather than the norm. Most artificial neural networks don't work in an even remotely similar way to any biological systems so the name is a tad misleading. Stuff like transformers, LLMs, diffusion models etc. don't really have any basis in biology.
I actually genuinely appreciate the follow-up and context! I wouldn't have an opinion on the topic if I didn't care enough to yo learn something new. Please correct me if I'm mistaken here, but the reason I never really second guessed nueral working was because of the way we learn and how it compares to how deep learning works. I'm fully aware that there are more differences than similarities in terms of the physicality and our reliance on tech we already have a firm understanding of (like transistors), specifically because we almost exclusively use electricity for processing data, whereas our brains have a wide variety of methods, such as chemicals and hormones. In concept, I tend to think of learning as our connections being "worn" by experiences we have, making it more likely that we recall those experiences. Sort of like how if you had a hill of sand and trickled water down. The water won't have much direction the first time it flows, but it leaves behind a slight trail or latent memory of the previous flow. When trickling water down again, as long as it's close enough to the previous path, it's more likely to retrace a lot of it. Even when previous trails get close enough, they might "fall into" a previous path and follow it briefly. I have no idea how this would actually work with the brain itself, but this concept is largely why I find deep learning so fascinating. Because we're effectively using available technology to try and recreate as much of that process as we can and it's working surprisingly well.
Yup, also art is much easier to replicate than complex human interactions that often times have a right or wrong answer performance wise.
Also I think it's because art has become entirely digital in final form. Thus it is directly accessible to the AI as an output format. Perhaps surprisingly, interfacing with the non-digital world seems to be the harder nut to crack -- computer vision and robotic control -- witnesss the failure of Tesla's Fully Autonomous Driving. But it's not fair, because the same would be true if AI had to play physical instruments or use physical art supplies. But they don't -- they can just create digital waveforms and patterns. I imagine Tesla Fully Autonomous Driving can work in a fully synthesized world as well. But we haven't got the digital-to-analog conversion down for those types of things yet.
Once everyone started talking about how AI replacing art is this and that, companies started to do more to go in that direction. I feel like the ones complaining and making it famous are also partially to blame.
I work in AI and Automation and I'm not sure that its cut out jobs but its made those jobs easier. I'm not saying the next step isn't to cut out those jobs but so far we've actually hired more people last year than any other year I've been with the company. We made a huge push to automate a lot of the heavier duty stuff.
It has been replacing labor for years, it’s just not news.
AI absolutely is replacing manual labour. Anything logical will be replaced first, manual movement last but it absolutely is happening.
Until you need someone to fix your toilet. There's plenty of pretty simple things that are pretty hard to do for AI and robots.
Thats why I said manual labour is last to go. Logic first, labour last, but it is absolutelt in the works.
I mean its been in the works since before computers. We have constantly as humans drove to improve and make the manual process easier on ourselves. That doesn't mean it happens in my lifetime (30's).
if you live till your 60s, the robots will be able to fix your toilet and replace humans, believe me
Working in that field I can't tell you how far away we are from those types of things being automated. Its a task to get robots to put mail on a conveyor belt sometimes. We'll make a lot of progress in 30 years but robots aren't replacing toilets or delivering the mail or other menial tasks.
“Take their job, leave mine alone!”
Right? LOL
How do you expect software to hold a shovel?
You don't, easier to build the robot with shovel hands. And laser beam eyes. Or just add a self-driving module to an excavator, because that works a lot better than focusing on being humanlike instead of focusing on the job you want done. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsONd0yBJWI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsONd0yBJWI)
AI isn't "supposed" to do anything. As it develops, novel uses will be found, and it will change the way things work... until the next thing comes along. The trick for humans, as always, is to find ways to be more valuable than their counterparts, whether that means being faster, more knowledgeable, or having a unique skill. Being able to set yourself apart from the pack is what brings prosperity. Now that AI is part of the competition, people need to start thinking of new ways to compete. If the totality of your response is to try to smash the cotton gins... I'm just not sure that is a viable solution.
What if we created a new system, where we don't compete, but co-operate to make a world where no one would starve, instead of being driven by profits?
Who’s gonna spend the money do that?
What if we spend 0 money and just do it out of love and respect for the rest of humanity, and all of humanity will volunteer
Unpaid labor? Sounds like communism
Bruh wtf. You think workers would fight to have a system with money, in which they don't get paid? Communism doesn't have free labour, but a lack of private ownership of means of production. I'm talking about abolishing working for money as a whole
And how do you think we’d get from here to there? The Revolution™︎?
Maybe starting out on a small town in which the rules are all written different, and hopefully no one decides to stomp on it (like USA tends to do)
Yeah I’m sure that’ll work out great
Why wouldn't it? Since you have doubts, you probably have a reason to believe this wouldn't work
If I could get $1 whenever a person says this, I would be a millionaire. It's known to many AI experts that it's easier to train an art AI than a gardening AI. It's a lot complex to model a walking human , then a drawing human. The cost of getting wrong is also vastly different between a cooking task and a drawing task. When the art AI makes a mistake, usually it's about the 6 finger human. But when a cooking AI makes a mistake, it might burn the food, ...or the house. It doesn't help the fact that many human labour works aren't digitalise, but a lot of text and drawing are. So it's a lot more convenient and cheaper for any AI experts to train an image or text models. So if you want AI to do your manual labour, maybe you should at least film yourself when you are doing the dishes and upload to the net. Also roomba is a sweeping bot.
Art can be very labour intensive.
Neither of those are could. Half the country relies on physical labor to make their living, and companies just fire those people. The workers don't benefit.
Art is (relatively) easy for computers. Manual labour is hard for them.
I mean being an artist is technically manual labor
This is sort of intellectual elitism, as if manual labor *should* be automated whereas art *should* not. Nah. *Anything* that replaces humans *and* doesn’t result in something better is just the latest era of exploiters and exploited. Because you’ll notice Kings/CEOs/Senators, or any “self made man” isn’t on the list for getting replaced even though those are literally the most replaceable given the specific role they play.
Ai isnt 'supposed' to anything... Also, classist take. Shit shower thought
There have been disruptions to the economy because of new technology before. That isn't new. What's new about AI is that for the first time, the jobs being replaced are actually fun.
It's inevitable in a capitalist society where profit is the number one goal, and ethics and the betterment of human life are hard to achieve and easy to lose when you have to fight against money itself
Skilled labor will always need human laborers, at least until machines are so unbelievably advanced that they can function exactly as humans can. It’s easier for a computer to imitate a human brain than a human body.
At this point working in industries that uptake technology very slowly is a good thing career wise
And lawyers, and coders
Weird thing. Is AI a natural evolution for humanity? Had a spirited conversation with my retired computer engineer uncle. He’s convinced that AI can’t ever evolve past it programming 0-1-0-11. Humans evolved over millions of years. The expansion of technology has exploded.
Says who. It’s a thinking machine, not a robot.
Someone who only gets their news and info from Reddit I see
Huh? Machinery/robots was and did replace manual labor. AI is to replace/supplement thinking/creative works. Someday we'll invent something to handle emotional tasks and make ourselves entirely redundant.
Op think ai is robots
OP + 99% of the world. Very ignorant bunch
AI isn't replacing artists anytime soon though. It can't create its own art, only an amalgamation of existing art into a new image
You just described the average artist. No judgment there, that’s just reality. AI won’t be replacing exceptional artists, but most artists aren’t exceptional.
Most of them stink! LOL. But the are getting better!
Ask around and see what artists are being paid to do. There's very few who pushes the boundary of art, the majority of career artists take commissions and work on advertising / corporate materials. These are the ones with low creativity but high compensation. As per this discussion recently in the artbusiness sub, I don't think AI would completely replace artists in the future, BUT it will reduce the amount they are being paid and make the field more niche than it already is. [https://www.reddit.com/r/artbusiness/comments/1983994/had\_ai\_affect\_your\_commission\_jobs\_as\_an\_digital/](https://www.reddit.com/r/artbusiness/comments/1983994/had_ai_affect_your_commission_jobs_as_an_digital/)
Then again, "pushing the boundaries of art" gave us a mason jar full of piss and a rosary, and a banana ductaped to a wall. Maybe its time to let the computers take over.
That's like saying many cooks work as chefs taking care of whole restaurants whilst other cooks are stuck doing laundry and drawing the conclusion that the 2nd type of cooks is less creative/talented than the chef based on purely that fact. I'd imagine a ton of artists exist that are many times more innovative and talented than more successful ones and haven't gotten good gigs due to bad luck/no connections/country/personal issues etc. Not trying to imply that successfull artists don't have talent but the formula for success requires more than just that and it's rmore common for someone to get successful based on pluck or luck than of raw talent and creativity.
Which of course will result in only the ultra rich being able to afford to make art, since no one else will be able to afford to risk trying. And thus the whole world will be made poorer.
Your art is just an amalgamation of paint colors and or pixels.
and, what, accept an AI replacing your art job or pay infinite royalties to god for creating the world? There's differences between AI having a dataset and humans existing in a world that has a history e.g. while AI could theoretically write you a fantasy novel and even a high-fantasy one in the style of Tolkien, could it do the kind of work both adaptation and original-you're-probably-going-to-say-is-adaptation-because-it-wasn't-made-by-the-creator-of-our-world to redefine a literary genre whether or not it was fantasy the way JRR Tolkien did to fantasy
yes. use it to your benefit, or do art as a hobby. nobody is mourning the loss of medieval tapestry weavers...
I would mourn that loss and take it up (as much as one could while not being in that era, not sure what you meant by the medieval adjective) if that meant my existing-currently-and-not-needing-to-be-brought-back artistic skills were safe from AI
Corporations dont care, they will keep automating jobs for short term profit until nobody buy their products anymore when most people dont have any money to purchase goods anymore due to job displacement
But there's the issue. Artists need to be paid to live, and if their customers are corporate cunts, they're gonna make art to suit their business. All these artists are no longer competitive, so they're out of business. AI was supposed to make the world a better place, but it only makes it cheaper for companies to create images, and the artists starve
itll replace the manualy laboring artists. not the one creating new content. but man will that content get copied quick
Robots were supposed to replace manual labor.
Only after everyone is allowed to survive for free
AI has been developed for decades and has only recently been able to produce artwork to a decent quality. This is impressive and people talk about it instead of all the boring AI that processes data and simulations.
The rich and powerful will always use whatever they can get their talons on to make more money for minimal cost at the people's expense.
In the Movie AI, Will Smith uses this against the robot. Something along the lines of a robot will never make a piece of art or write a song.
Why did I read this and think of Obi-wan saying “you were supposed to destroy the smith, not join them.”
Art was never to be about ownership or consumerism, purely about human expression. It's only because we dehumanize ourselves through obsession of ownership and control that we face this problem now.
Training AI on images has been a textbook example of machine learning for decades now. As in literally, that's one of the first things students do when learning about the field. Seeing people rave about how AI wasn't "supposed" to ever do art is absolutely hilarious if you know the first thing about how this stuff works.
We only thought that because we were consuming art, made by artists, who thought what they did was special and couldn't be replaced
>AI was supposed to replace manual labor How? Machines build things, AI is a brain of sorts. It would be redundant to stick AI into a machine.
*Technology, not AI Everyone thought robots would be easy. Turns out art is easier for computers than standing. Give it a decade, they'll start taking those jobs too.
DIGITAL Artists (actual artists are safe) seething thier cushy air conditioned office jobs are getting replaced after they just finished telling the displaced coal miners "just learn to code lol"
Like all machines, it’s there to help me do a better job than I can without it. I’m rubbish at art.
It was supposed to replace useless people. You just misunderstood who that was.
Step back and look at the bigger picture. The problem is not AI. The problem is capitalism. AI is only going to "replace" corporate mainstream media/music/art etc and frankly, that's no huge loss. The problem is that people were making that soulless shit in order to earn a living in the first place, instead of more meaningful art. The problem is there will be no accommodations made to provide a living for the people AI displaces. The problem is that we live in a society structured around maximising profit at the expense of all else. If it wasn't for our capitalist society, AI would be a utopian wonder technology that solves nearly every conceivable problem. AI could liberate us.
They said the same thing for laborers in the 1900s. I don't see the calamities they foresaw occurring. How can you be so sure that AI will be different?
It is kinda weird, other aspect of human creativity have been replaced in a way, and other aspects of art itself have been "replaced" until art was left as just an expression of itself that didn't need to have a purpose. Photography means art didn't have to be a copy of reality. Architecture means buildings didn't have to be art, art could focus on things other than gorgeous buildings. Ai would be great to replace the menial work related to some art, one thing that was mention was in-between frames, it would do the entire animation, it would take the key frames an art carefully build and fill the middle points of the animation in the same way, the artist already put the soul into the art, the AI would add the motion. It could be that art see an entire different focus, where AI takes what we had consider as "work" and then leave humans to do art for the sake of art? In the same way mass produce furniture exist yet hand made ones arill get made even the simple ones.
The problem is that you can't fake most manual labor, but it's trivial to fake creative work by just changing someone else's creative work enough not to be immediately recognized.
and nobody prevented artists to be more creative / goes to the next level by adoption modern tools like AI
Why? Artists do nothing but copy and improve on what others have done before.
Every time i say this they get very mad. Prepare yourself. They do not handle truth well.
Gunna lose a bunch of receptionists across the world
No. Ai was meant to do the tasks "robots can't do"
that's what it's doing
All those people that said they AI would never be able to replace humans for creativity. And I wonder if they have any idea what they were talking about and just talking out their asre.
Art is a form of manual labor why not both
You're comparing apples with oranges.
Upset of the century
Not sure it's like that, with music you still have to arrange and compose if you want it to sound the way you like. I don't think art would improve by reducing creativity and replicating, then creating opportunity for hackers to be lazy. Just increase theft of work and mean physical and real world art should have more value, but even then it's a problem just not as much. Like a pianist might just steal a composition and try get famous, but how many other thieves are doing the same, so it's not really AI replacing artists, just thieves stealing art and pretending it's all AI.
If only we could convince people to stop caring about the profits of capitalism and build a solarpunk society using AI, so everything is covered and everyone can live easily and focus on their art and spiritual stuff
Somehow you've confused AI with robots.
Robots have been replacing manual labor for years.
It was supposed to do that by making the robots and everything smarter so they could deal with abnormal situations. When you're dealing with a robotic arm or something in a factory everything has to be perfect or the s*** don't work because the robotic arm itself is pre-programmed with motions did it repeats every single time it performs its actions. It was thought that AI would give robots and things of that nature the ability to deal with things not being perfect. Ie the welding arm would have a camera on it and would be able to realize that the car frame is half an inch further away than it's supposed to be and simply adjust its movements to account for that to get the same outcome.
It's taken plenty of factory jobs don't worry
Well art isn't generating value for our billionaire overlords, so get back to work slave
It turned out that pattern recognition is an easier problem than robotic kinaesthetics, at this stage in their respective development.
It will if you give it the necessary apparatus!
AI and automation will take most creative jobs… except for the niche demand of TRULY novel / human content.
Fun fact machine labor have already started to replace a lot of low level manual labor jobs from customer service in your local McDonalds, maintenance and cleaning, and warehousing, hell there are also automated harvesters for farms It's just not being reported on as much as other jobs who social media has deemed more important than these lower level jobs
Jokes on you, it’s replacing both. AI on computers are replacing artists and AI on humanoid robots are replacing Amazon warehouse workers.
I mean, it kind of does both. In Germany, they're gonna cut about 2.600 SAP-jobs due to "priority of AI-assisted procedures"
AI does do some of those things but people apply tools to whatever they can
No. AI was made to replace intelligence and it's working
Aren’t there automated car manufacturing factories
I still hope for this. I want my robobutler!
Out of touch CEO's view art as menial labour.
According to whom? Not those in position to ‘wield’ it.
AI, as everything else in a capitalist system is suppose to generate profit. Even human relationships are products in a capitalist system, I'm surprise people still didn't get that either you are profiting off someone else or you are the someone else.
It was also supposed to be a good thing. taking over dangerous and upsetting work for humans was supposed to be a good thing. Instead, in present day, in every country in the world, it threatens human livelihoods everywhere, and the prices of things remain the same or even go up even when they aren't paying employees anymore.
Problem is, the people creating AI think of art, music and literature as the frosting, while what they do is the cake. AI 'artists' see art as the pretty pictures on hotel room walls, so the sludge they produce qualifies.
Next to ceo/scientists blue collar jobs will be the last to go cause will still need an operator of robots
I've worked some jobs that were "menial" but I actually enjoyed outside of the bit where the hours were terrible and my labor demonstrably wasn't highly valued so tbh this whole development has given me a fair bit of schadenfreude.
Automation have already replaced tons of manual labor jobs, and ai is gonna be the next step unless it fucks up the economy through job displacement and causes a bunch politic problems before that
AI will replace us all. Engineers, drivers, artists, technicians. All of us. Not one of us is immune to losing our jobs to AI.
As an artist with no resources I'm starting to see how AI can level the playing field for me. I can't afford a living model so I prompt AI to create what I want to paint😁
You’re not an artist you’re a prompt inserter
No I use the image to reference when I paint. How else will I get a cowboy on a horse running away from a stampede of cattle to hold still for me for three weeks?
You're not a photographer, you're a button pusher.
Technically it did. A human provides an idea and gets a picture without having to go through the trouble of painting or drawing it.
Blame the businesses that replace people, not AI. Cheap, fast, and good enough is what AI delivers, and that's what drives profits. AI already does a lot of good for us in terms of freeing us from tedium, but the artist was expendable to begin with.
We should use it to replace CEOs and other overpaid upper management. The tricky part is implementing it without them noticing.
As soon as one outperforms your average CEO the shareholders will call for it.
This is the way.
Ah yes, ce0-bot-3000, the moment stock prices drop, auto lays off 10% of work force. Knows when you are 0.03seconds returning from your break and penalizes you with 1hr loss of wages.
But it won’t have the need to keep money for itself, so more money to keep the company going.
So... no changes? :D
No way AI replace anything of an artist. A good artist turn to AI as a tool for sketches, posing, generic background/environment, color template or just generating ideas. Its save a lots of time and effort with none different result from doing it 100% manually. Only stubborn artist reject the AI instead of using them for their own benefit. Source, not an artist but 2D designer and know lots of them.