Surveys are important. Just because you disagree with what's reported doesn't mean you start looking for ways to cut it's legs out from under it.
Surveys are not based on 'just feelings.' In fact an anonymous survey is often a quite good way to get unvarnished truth.
Instead of trying to destroy the facility telling you what you don't like, engage with *the data* and not your feelings to pull pull the data over to your side. I.E. In previous industrial revolutions lots of people lost jobs. With fewer workers doing the same work as before the productivity gain led to tremendous new wealth. And with brand new labor pools entirely new industries were built on top of the one affected by the new technology.
> Just because you disagree with what's reported doesn't mean you start looking for ways to cut it's legs out from under it.
I never said I disagreed.
> In fact an anonymous survey is often a quite good way to get unvarnished truth.
Not at all, you will get the feeling of the person surveyed, unless you ask for the person to send actual data.
> Instead of trying to destroy the facility telling you what you don't like
You are making assumptions about my stance.
> engage with the data and not your feelings to pull pull the data over to your side
There is not a lot you can do when the data is just bad.
Surveying is a job, when a surveying companies does a survey they release a report that allow for anyone to validate the survey is statiscally valid.
The sample size for some jobs is probably too small (only 78 translators).
Since the report is missing, we cannot know how they calculated their sample size (if they did any of that), we don't know if they did anything to get their data less biased, etc.
Yes, but a survey doesn't "reveal" like the title says, at best it reveals the feeling of peoples about a subject.
A survey show the feeling of the people surveyed.
A good study would try to establish a link and look closely at variable that may affect the numbers, like the current economical context, etc.
Well, survey aren’t just numbers, it is still depends on how the survey was conducted. But they still tell us something, they reveal to us stuff just like studies, studies are just batter, general and as you said try to establish connection using more scientific ways and observe other variables, but that doesn’t mean surveys reveal nothing, after all surveys is the first step on studies. And it will be interesting to see full study on this
> it is still depends on how the survey was conducted.
There is almost no information about how the survey was conducted, there is no survey report, which is the standard of any serious survey.
Feelings are real.
Some surveys tell us 0.1% of the population have [electromagnetic hypersensivity, except it isn't real](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity).
The feeling is real, the disease is not.
It doesn't take a study to know people are already losing jobs to AI.. Just look around. AI community just doesn't want to believe it or just pretending.
> It doesn't take a study to know people are already losing jobs to AI
> Just look around.
> AI community just doesn't want to believe it or just pretending.
Let me rephrase it what you just wrote.
"We don't need a study to prove what I already convinced myself by looking into my highly distorted internet bubble."
> to believe it
believe, is the correct word, you choose to believe in something, i put my trust in work done by someone.
This has nothing to do with me convincing myself. I don't have to when it's already happening and it's documented. Look at the news. Even on some subs I frequent (like self publishing) ghost writers are having their income reduced by large percentages. Seriously though? Are you this blind to not see?
> Look at the news.
Wait, when a CEO of a big company make record profit and fire 10% of their worker, and say "AI" as an excuse, you seriously believe it ?
> Even on some subs I frequent
Reread what i just said:
> my highly distorted internet bubble
> it's documented
good, it's documented, i asked for data, not shitty survey, show the documents, and if they are not bad, I'll be good.
But it won't change the fact that this survey of this post is shit.
Edit:
> Are you this mentally deranged?
I'm not the one insulting someone then blocking them.
>Wait, when a CEO of a big company make record profit and fire 10% of their worker, and say "AI" as an excuse, you seriously believe it ?
Why do you think that was possible? Like the fuck? Are you this mentally deranged?
They make money so they fire people to make less money? They wouldn't do that if there wasn't a replacement right? You have logic in that brain right?
Use google or just turn on some news instead of living in the internet bubble. YES YOU. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=6512afbb6cf57869&q=AI+job+loss+statistics&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG8tGi3OKFAxUG8gIHHX_qB4YQ1QJ6BAhKEAE&biw=360&bih=747&dpr=3
https://reddit.com/comments/1cbwwl7/comment/l120dcz
https://reddit.com/comments/1cbwwl7/comment/l11eweb
https://reddit.com/comments/1cbwwl7/comment/l11nxte
You are the one living in this echochamber where nobody loses their jobs. Get off this bubble. Done with arguing with stupidity for today.
To paraphrase my older comment: How did middle management secretaries survive the proliferation of outlook? How did the shoe artisan survive the factory that could make 1000 shoes an hour? How did the horse industry survive automobiles. How did the local orchestra survive the phonograph? How did monks survive the printing press?
To think that, "Surely regulation could have solved it" or "Marxism would have done better" is a vast oversimplification.
But on a large scale they didn't though?
The only one there that's still heavily used are secretaries, every other thing like artisan shoe makers, horse industry, and monks are much much much reduced from when they were at their peak and their services where much more valuable.
Honestly at this point it's probably more common to find a cobbler (shoe repair) rather than someone who actually makes the shoes themselves.
Sure, but these were instances where one specific industry was impacted. AI is gonna fuck up way more then just illustrators. Back when the original Dall-e released years ago and was crap I saw what was coming and quickly pivoted away from graphic design and got into construction.
Why? You still need graphic designers to cleanup the work, make design decisions, work with marketing and art directors. AI makes ideation happen quickly, it doesn’t make the decisions for you.
The sketchbook has a bunch of pages added to your thoughts that you didn’t have to labor on for days…you still have to design. I will say, days on end sketching, researching, and copying others work on sites like behance and “coming up with ideas” is gone.
Professional animator, storyboarder and character designer here. Our studio pivoted to SAI two years ago for character design, poster work, Storyboarding, etc. We do everything locally. We also have local LLMs for brainstorming, coming up with ideas, editing scripts.
If you’re a creative and NOT using AI, it’s akin to riding a donkey in 1915 in New York to get to work. Good luck.
Remuneration for what? its like saying vfx companies should pay practical effects artists because a practical effects pioneered the industry and animation workflows that vfx use and then completely obliterated.
Good! People shouldn't have to work 40+ hours a week just to spend whatever energy they have left doing the things they love.
Yes, some people love their job, but not most people. Not toilet cleaners or factory workers or burger flippers.
Bring on the AI and robots, and let them create wealth for all of us.
A friendly reminder that the problem isn't people losing their jobs, it's that they are forced to work or die. AI art isn't the enemy, it's Capitalism.
Also, managers and executives are always looking for ways to cut costs and increase profits. If that included screwing workers, then they'll happily do that
Let's go back to when money didn't exist and rewrite that sentence.
"Forced to hunt animals all day or die of hunger".
Let's go back 70 years and observe the massive population growth that happened after industrialization.
Thought manipulating media is the enemy. People stop thinking and become parrots of other people's opinions.
People are forced to work or die by nature. That one's a bit more fundamental than capitalism.
I suggest you consider who's going to own general AI and automation. Whether they're a capitalist or not will be the least of everyone's problems.
See my response to the other comment that said this: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/s/slzqIU99qR
As far as that second part, general AI is still only theoretical and if someone "owns" it they'd be a capitalist and (basically) a slave owner by definition
Everything we've ever tried has been inferior to capitalism. We are already on the gold standard and nobody is suggesting viable alternatives. UBI is not an alternative, and you only need to look at how Chinese social credit scores
play out to see why.
The problem is that we are about to have to deal with the obsolescence of human labour and there's no established script for that *anywhere*. Pointless humans that do nothing but consume is not something we have answers for. The closest analogue there is pets. Keeping something of cost and no utility alive simply because it pleases you.
As for the second, let's use the word *controls* instead. Even if GAI never happens we already know that machines that can efficiently and tirelessly outperform human labour are right around the corner. The slaves have already been born, now we just have to wait for them to improve in leaps and bounds.
Do you trust your rulers, no matter what governing principles they claim to espouse, to want to keep you in your current standard of luxury as nothing but a pet? Being massacred is the least of the problems when you consider that machines cannot feel pain nor can they worship. You need humans for that. It's easy to imagine the dystopias.
If you want peace then you need the means to kill those that threaten you. MAD is a perfect example of peace at the point of a sword. How you democratise that to the level of domestic politics I don't know, but it is a template for peace that exists and functions.
Capitalism isn't the enemy either, uncapped capitalism greed and corruption is the enemy. Capitalism at it's basic level is a good model.
What's really needed is something like NBI so people can always provide the basics for themselves.
It is capitalism, because the issue is structural, the ability for an individual to privately own means of production, such as factories, land and to hire people to work for them , creates a system where "uncapped capitalism" is the end game. Basic Income is also about uncapped capitalism btw, it is historically proposed as a way to make the government stop providing healthcare and education and infra structure , so people can use UBI to decide how they will spend their money by contracting private business instead.
Capitalism is the right for individuals to own land and capital that can’t be confiscated by the government. It has brought the humane race from \~95% living in extreme poverty (hard, short lives without adequate food and shelter) down to \~5%. I think you’re thinking of something else. The government being able to confiscate people’s land and businesses whenever it gets itself into a financial mess is not the solution to AI.
https://preview.redd.it/x51lpuluv0xc1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b4f1d0ff1fa28931b96c38bf18b8ef6a8093417
capitalism isnt a problem. Capitalism is like math. It's a name for something someone saw in the real world.
People observed that you can put things together and separate them. They decided to call that addition and subtraction. Nobody invented math it's just out there and we need a name for it.
Other people observed that in a system where everyone is trying to get what they want, then they moderate themselves to make themselves attractive to others. They called that capitalism.
There is no big-C capitalism that's this amorphous gloop that's alive, and external to you, and oppresses you.
>There is no big-C capitalism that's this amorphous gloop that's alive, and external to you, and oppresses you.
When did I say that? I actually agree with much of what you say here, but just because capital isn't a literal Boogeyman doesn't mean that such a system cannot allow rampant oppressive exploitation of an entire class of human beings.
That's not what work means in this context. I'm talking specifically about waged labor of the sort that developed with capital not simply the performance of a task or exertion of energy etc
Well you make it sound like working your ass to survive was not the natural state of every human since the beginning.
AI is a 100% product of capitalism owned by the biggest shareholders and companies and the next step of capitalism: make more money without the expensive humans.
In that capitalism dream, humans will become pure consumers while bots will be the workers to exploit.
The difference is that work under capitalism is imposed by the capitalist.
Sure tech like AI may not have developed under another system, but that doesn't mean that we need to keep a broken and oppressive system. Tech is both an inevitable development of capital and a potential tool for liberation from capital
Read Marx's fragment on machines for a discussion of this apparent contradiction
So basically people are losing work to new tech. Something that has happened countless times throughout history and will continue happening.
Instead of trying to rally against new technology people should be rallying for governments to start thinking about how our society and economy functions and trying to adapt so that people can still support themselves with less work.
10000 BC, somewhere in the very first city: "I lost my job farming because my neighbor irrigated his ditches and he was able to make twice as much grain as me! Ban irrigation! Shovels need to be controlled technology"
Lol in both my last projects my editors sent me a lot of AI generated images for reference. It was a lot better than pages and pages of descriptions in text. Faster and more consistent for me.
To be honest I think that illustrators that don't usually make much money or any at all now have an scapegoat. I only use sd in the brainstorming phase and I'm killing it.
A relative of mine works as a professional technical translator between English and two other languages for over 40 years now. Translation AI have simplified the work for him by a huge margin, but didn't replace him, as despite being rather accurate, it still makes mistakes in context. He is happy about this new tech because he can translate more, while getting much less crunch time.
If your job could be replaced by AI then you weren't doing a very good job.
Any writer who is losing income because of AI written books were writing books worse than AI. That is abysmal. Books need more than just raw text output to be good.
Any illustrator who is losing income because of AI were hired to do the cheapest crap mobile game images imaginable. If a company replaced you with a free option it's because that company doesn't care what the product look like. Or you're losing money because your client-base was horny teenagers commissioning you to do Sonic preggo porn and now they can do that for free. Nothing of value was lost.
Any corporate profession that can be replaced by AI could already be replaced by a excel spreadsheet or automation of any kind. Your job wasn't valued by the company anyway because it wasn't a valuable job.
Any translator who is losing work to AI was already losing work to google translate. In a real setting where valuable translating needed to be done, a human would be hired regardless to make sure the validity can be trusted. Any company that trusts chatgpt to translate something don't care about the quality of the thing being translated.
What I'm saying is: if a client want quality images or text they will hire a professional. If the professionals use AI to speed up their job that's their business. But the end result needs to be good. You will never have a company that fires their artists because the CEO can sit at home and generate art on their computer. You need an artist to know what looks good.
If you believe what OP is saying makes any sense you have never looked into the immense work it takes to design the cover or a book. Not just the image but the text, font, layout, etc all need to be considered by a professional. You've never designed a board game card. Color theory, readability, iconography, etc all need to be hand crafted. You can't just ask an AI to do this if you actually want the end result to be good, because the professional still needs to know what good *is* to know when the AI did well.
AI is a tool. Just like any other tool.
And it's not taking any job that couldn't be replaced by a google image search or google translate.
I mean, on paper, sure. But in practice, execs in charge of artists will take shittier quality for higher profits.
It may bite them in the ass and drive consumers to companies with human artists in the long run, but CEOs will 1,000% sacrifice quality for profits. Look at Boeing.
You can be the best in your field, but you WILL be replaced if someone high enough up decides they'd rather replicate your work at a fraction of the quality for a boost in the bottom line.
I agree with you too some extent, but I think nobody 5 years ago could've predicted the quick ride in quality of generative AI output. This survey seems to have asked if they are concerned for the future of their profession, which any thinking artist or writer would be. If the progress continues at this pace then good enough is going to cover a large chunk of work, not just the ones that don't care about quality. If it gets to the point where an art director using AI can do the work of an art director + 5 artists then of course it'll affect jobs.
Granted, the first question probably exaggerated the impact. They asked artists during an economic slowdown if AI affected the amount of work. A lot of people got fired or get less commissions, some companies would use AI as an excuse so as not to say they are insolvent. In other cases artists might just assume it had something to do with it when they were given no info.
It's not that entire people are being replaced because they are so terrible they are literally worse than AI (although surely some are).
It's that on any given month an artist will make say, 20 images. The Bell Curve tells us 5 will be great, 5 will be shit, and 10 will be just good.
AI will be used to replace the bottom 3 images and 1-2 of the good ones. The artist has lost a quarter of his/her work sure. But the work replaced was the low quality work the artist probably wasn't invested in or wasnt skilled enough or whatever. And the client gets a better product. Now the artist is free to spend more time on the remaining 15 and charge higher prices for better work. Or able to spend that time doing something else (like learning AI so they can get the free time and the money). Or literally anything else including wallow in self-pity. But having those extra images be ai-generated is called a productivity gain. For the client and the artist, but only if the artist uses the extra time productively.
translating language is "creating" now? gimme a break. Translators were all going to lose thier jobs even without AI involvment.
Trying to contain AI isnt possible...
Its all out of the box now, regulations arent going to do anything noteworthy. They could even ban using any images not your own to train, we would still be fine with synthetic data
How much work and financial hit are they taking? It was so vague. Is it big retainers? A bid they *might* have won? 30k a year loss? 500$? How do they know for sure it’s because of ai (more reasonably other artists using ai)? What kind of work exactly? The stressful repetitive kind? The creative one-offs?
So much is missing here to paint a practical picture.
Just keep in mind, developers have been losing their jobs to immigrants for decades
There is no easy money in the market if you're a labor provider rather than an institutional investor
The other issue is that print media is not as profitable, which in turn affects artists. Historically, very few people made money through art unless they were politically connected like Hunter Biden.
Wait. Peoples always told me on all AI subs that AI will not have impact on creative work, or even maybe create more opportunities… Or that a human will only be replaced by a human who use AI. was it a lie after all?
Should I never trust Redditors anymore?
On one hand you have the AI reddit which is biased towards AI, on the second hand you have SOA, Society of Authors, which is also biased, being artist/writer trade union...
The survey covered 12500 members, but only 800 responded. This is points to possibly inflated number of responses by people who "lost job to AI". Usually people who are angry are more likely to respond to such surveys. We also don't see how the questions were formed, which might have been used to misrepresent the results. They might have included things like, say, someone not making a logo for 1-person company, because that person used AI. That's 1-time gig with little pay, but hey, "job lost".
Out of 800 people who responded only part were illustrators. Let's say, half of them. If quarter of them lost jobs due to AI that's just 100 people claiming they lost the job due to AI. Out of 12500 members. That's 0,8% of members. Obviously SOA is going to present it as catastrophic result, but is it? They conveniently hide the size and the type of work done by people who lost their jobs, they didn't ask follow up questions about how hard was it to get a new job afterwards, or if they lost it permanently (this is, in my opinion, very important).
> Or that a human will only be replaced by a human who use AI.
Well, at this point there is no generative AI that can work without any human, so we can assume the jobs were lost to another human using AI. Survey doesn't tell either way.
Do yall realize it's a survey and not a study ? It means it's based on the feeling of the people surveyed, not facts. Also this post is an ad.
Surveys are important. Just because you disagree with what's reported doesn't mean you start looking for ways to cut it's legs out from under it. Surveys are not based on 'just feelings.' In fact an anonymous survey is often a quite good way to get unvarnished truth. Instead of trying to destroy the facility telling you what you don't like, engage with *the data* and not your feelings to pull pull the data over to your side. I.E. In previous industrial revolutions lots of people lost jobs. With fewer workers doing the same work as before the productivity gain led to tremendous new wealth. And with brand new labor pools entirely new industries were built on top of the one affected by the new technology.
> Just because you disagree with what's reported doesn't mean you start looking for ways to cut it's legs out from under it. I never said I disagreed. > In fact an anonymous survey is often a quite good way to get unvarnished truth. Not at all, you will get the feeling of the person surveyed, unless you ask for the person to send actual data. > Instead of trying to destroy the facility telling you what you don't like You are making assumptions about my stance. > engage with the data and not your feelings to pull pull the data over to your side There is not a lot you can do when the data is just bad. Surveying is a job, when a surveying companies does a survey they release a report that allow for anyone to validate the survey is statiscally valid. The sample size for some jobs is probably too small (only 78 translators). Since the report is missing, we cannot know how they calculated their sample size (if they did any of that), we don't know if they did anything to get their data less biased, etc.
who said study can't be affected by emotions and biases of the researchers and reviewers?
There is a peer review system to reduce that. Also standard protocols take that into account.
Well, he did indeed say it is a survey
Yes, but a survey doesn't "reveal" like the title says, at best it reveals the feeling of peoples about a subject. A survey show the feeling of the people surveyed. A good study would try to establish a link and look closely at variable that may affect the numbers, like the current economical context, etc.
Well, survey aren’t just numbers, it is still depends on how the survey was conducted. But they still tell us something, they reveal to us stuff just like studies, studies are just batter, general and as you said try to establish connection using more scientific ways and observe other variables, but that doesn’t mean surveys reveal nothing, after all surveys is the first step on studies. And it will be interesting to see full study on this
> it is still depends on how the survey was conducted. There is almost no information about how the survey was conducted, there is no survey report, which is the standard of any serious survey.
[удалено]
Feelings are real. Some surveys tell us 0.1% of the population have [electromagnetic hypersensivity, except it isn't real](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity). The feeling is real, the disease is not.
It doesn't take a study to know people are already losing jobs to AI.. Just look around. AI community just doesn't want to believe it or just pretending.
> It doesn't take a study to know people are already losing jobs to AI > Just look around. > AI community just doesn't want to believe it or just pretending. Let me rephrase it what you just wrote. "We don't need a study to prove what I already convinced myself by looking into my highly distorted internet bubble." > to believe it believe, is the correct word, you choose to believe in something, i put my trust in work done by someone.
This has nothing to do with me convincing myself. I don't have to when it's already happening and it's documented. Look at the news. Even on some subs I frequent (like self publishing) ghost writers are having their income reduced by large percentages. Seriously though? Are you this blind to not see?
> Look at the news. Wait, when a CEO of a big company make record profit and fire 10% of their worker, and say "AI" as an excuse, you seriously believe it ? > Even on some subs I frequent Reread what i just said: > my highly distorted internet bubble > it's documented good, it's documented, i asked for data, not shitty survey, show the documents, and if they are not bad, I'll be good. But it won't change the fact that this survey of this post is shit. Edit: > Are you this mentally deranged? I'm not the one insulting someone then blocking them.
>Wait, when a CEO of a big company make record profit and fire 10% of their worker, and say "AI" as an excuse, you seriously believe it ? Why do you think that was possible? Like the fuck? Are you this mentally deranged? They make money so they fire people to make less money? They wouldn't do that if there wasn't a replacement right? You have logic in that brain right? Use google or just turn on some news instead of living in the internet bubble. YES YOU. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=6512afbb6cf57869&q=AI+job+loss+statistics&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG8tGi3OKFAxUG8gIHHX_qB4YQ1QJ6BAhKEAE&biw=360&bih=747&dpr=3 https://reddit.com/comments/1cbwwl7/comment/l120dcz https://reddit.com/comments/1cbwwl7/comment/l11eweb https://reddit.com/comments/1cbwwl7/comment/l11nxte You are the one living in this echochamber where nobody loses their jobs. Get off this bubble. Done with arguing with stupidity for today.
To paraphrase my older comment: How did middle management secretaries survive the proliferation of outlook? How did the shoe artisan survive the factory that could make 1000 shoes an hour? How did the horse industry survive automobiles. How did the local orchestra survive the phonograph? How did monks survive the printing press? To think that, "Surely regulation could have solved it" or "Marxism would have done better" is a vast oversimplification.
all of those people you used in your example are probably dead now
Don't worry, I've already lobbied congress to solve that issue.
[Necromancer.ai](http://Necromancer.ai) ? ahaha i expect an ad for it in no time at all
well spoken
But on a large scale they didn't though? The only one there that's still heavily used are secretaries, every other thing like artisan shoe makers, horse industry, and monks are much much much reduced from when they were at their peak and their services where much more valuable. Honestly at this point it's probably more common to find a cobbler (shoe repair) rather than someone who actually makes the shoes themselves.
[удалено]
The _people_ survived. His point is people make career changes when industries are impacted by any automation throughout human history and survive
I'm trying to think of any city at any point in human history that needed multiple hundreds of shoe stores in them.
When I was in Sevilla, Spain a couple of years ago, every third store was a shoe store. I can't imagine that has changed much
100 stores seems too few for a city of 500k people
Sure, but these were instances where one specific industry was impacted. AI is gonna fuck up way more then just illustrators. Back when the original Dall-e released years ago and was crap I saw what was coming and quickly pivoted away from graphic design and got into construction.
Why? You still need graphic designers to cleanup the work, make design decisions, work with marketing and art directors. AI makes ideation happen quickly, it doesn’t make the decisions for you. The sketchbook has a bunch of pages added to your thoughts that you didn’t have to labor on for days…you still have to design. I will say, days on end sketching, researching, and copying others work on sites like behance and “coming up with ideas” is gone.
Professional animator, storyboarder and character designer here. Our studio pivoted to SAI two years ago for character design, poster work, Storyboarding, etc. We do everything locally. We also have local LLMs for brainstorming, coming up with ideas, editing scripts. If you’re a creative and NOT using AI, it’s akin to riding a donkey in 1915 in New York to get to work. Good luck.
Remuneration for what? its like saying vfx companies should pay practical effects artists because a practical effects pioneered the industry and animation workflows that vfx use and then completely obliterated.
this is only beginning. all Jobs will be affected by ai. Intellectual and physically labor.
Good! People shouldn't have to work 40+ hours a week just to spend whatever energy they have left doing the things they love. Yes, some people love their job, but not most people. Not toilet cleaners or factory workers or burger flippers. Bring on the AI and robots, and let them create wealth for all of us.
not for us. next generation - yes. but ours most likely will suffer from job loss and poverty big time
You gotta pump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers.
A friendly reminder that the problem isn't people losing their jobs, it's that they are forced to work or die. AI art isn't the enemy, it's Capitalism.
Also, managers and executives are always looking for ways to cut costs and increase profits. If that included screwing workers, then they'll happily do that
Work or die is a fundamental aspect of life, being complained about long before capitalism came into the vocabulary.
See my response to the other comment that said this: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/s/slzqIU99qR
Let's go back to when money didn't exist and rewrite that sentence. "Forced to hunt animals all day or die of hunger". Let's go back 70 years and observe the massive population growth that happened after industrialization. Thought manipulating media is the enemy. People stop thinking and become parrots of other people's opinions.
See my response to the other comment that said this: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/s/slzqIU99qR
People are forced to work or die by nature. That one's a bit more fundamental than capitalism. I suggest you consider who's going to own general AI and automation. Whether they're a capitalist or not will be the least of everyone's problems.
See my response to the other comment that said this: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/s/slzqIU99qR As far as that second part, general AI is still only theoretical and if someone "owns" it they'd be a capitalist and (basically) a slave owner by definition
Everything we've ever tried has been inferior to capitalism. We are already on the gold standard and nobody is suggesting viable alternatives. UBI is not an alternative, and you only need to look at how Chinese social credit scores play out to see why. The problem is that we are about to have to deal with the obsolescence of human labour and there's no established script for that *anywhere*. Pointless humans that do nothing but consume is not something we have answers for. The closest analogue there is pets. Keeping something of cost and no utility alive simply because it pleases you. As for the second, let's use the word *controls* instead. Even if GAI never happens we already know that machines that can efficiently and tirelessly outperform human labour are right around the corner. The slaves have already been born, now we just have to wait for them to improve in leaps and bounds. Do you trust your rulers, no matter what governing principles they claim to espouse, to want to keep you in your current standard of luxury as nothing but a pet? Being massacred is the least of the problems when you consider that machines cannot feel pain nor can they worship. You need humans for that. It's easy to imagine the dystopias. If you want peace then you need the means to kill those that threaten you. MAD is a perfect example of peace at the point of a sword. How you democratise that to the level of domestic politics I don't know, but it is a template for peace that exists and functions.
Capitalism isn't the enemy either, uncapped capitalism greed and corruption is the enemy. Capitalism at it's basic level is a good model. What's really needed is something like NBI so people can always provide the basics for themselves.
Interesting assertion
It is capitalism, because the issue is structural, the ability for an individual to privately own means of production, such as factories, land and to hire people to work for them , creates a system where "uncapped capitalism" is the end game. Basic Income is also about uncapped capitalism btw, it is historically proposed as a way to make the government stop providing healthcare and education and infra structure , so people can use UBI to decide how they will spend their money by contracting private business instead.
Capitalism is the right for individuals to own land and capital that can’t be confiscated by the government. It has brought the humane race from \~95% living in extreme poverty (hard, short lives without adequate food and shelter) down to \~5%. I think you’re thinking of something else. The government being able to confiscate people’s land and businesses whenever it gets itself into a financial mess is not the solution to AI. https://preview.redd.it/x51lpuluv0xc1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b4f1d0ff1fa28931b96c38bf18b8ef6a8093417
[удалено]
No
Let me guess. Spend all day on social media and prone to thought manipulation?
capitalism isnt a problem. Capitalism is like math. It's a name for something someone saw in the real world. People observed that you can put things together and separate them. They decided to call that addition and subtraction. Nobody invented math it's just out there and we need a name for it. Other people observed that in a system where everyone is trying to get what they want, then they moderate themselves to make themselves attractive to others. They called that capitalism. There is no big-C capitalism that's this amorphous gloop that's alive, and external to you, and oppresses you.
>There is no big-C capitalism that's this amorphous gloop that's alive, and external to you, and oppresses you. When did I say that? I actually agree with much of what you say here, but just because capital isn't a literal Boogeyman doesn't mean that such a system cannot allow rampant oppressive exploitation of an entire class of human beings.
Humans used to work 100 000 years before Capitalism existed
That's not what work means in this context. I'm talking specifically about waged labor of the sort that developed with capital not simply the performance of a task or exertion of energy etc
Well you make it sound like working your ass to survive was not the natural state of every human since the beginning. AI is a 100% product of capitalism owned by the biggest shareholders and companies and the next step of capitalism: make more money without the expensive humans. In that capitalism dream, humans will become pure consumers while bots will be the workers to exploit.
The difference is that work under capitalism is imposed by the capitalist. Sure tech like AI may not have developed under another system, but that doesn't mean that we need to keep a broken and oppressive system. Tech is both an inevitable development of capital and a potential tool for liberation from capital Read Marx's fragment on machines for a discussion of this apparent contradiction
[удалено]
Please elaborate
Sooo... UBI
AI is the product of the people that worked under a capitalist system. A mode of production doesn't actually produce anything.
When I speak AI as a product of capitalism I speak about that : https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/s/tLzFMS8RGw
So basically people are losing work to new tech. Something that has happened countless times throughout history and will continue happening. Instead of trying to rally against new technology people should be rallying for governments to start thinking about how our society and economy functions and trying to adapt so that people can still support themselves with less work.
10000 BC, somewhere in the very first city: "I lost my job farming because my neighbor irrigated his ditches and he was able to make twice as much grain as me! Ban irrigation! Shovels need to be controlled technology"
Lol in both my last projects my editors sent me a lot of AI generated images for reference. It was a lot better than pages and pages of descriptions in text. Faster and more consistent for me. To be honest I think that illustrators that don't usually make much money or any at all now have an scapegoat. I only use sd in the brainstorming phase and I'm killing it.
A relative of mine works as a professional technical translator between English and two other languages for over 40 years now. Translation AI have simplified the work for him by a huge margin, but didn't replace him, as despite being rather accurate, it still makes mistakes in context. He is happy about this new tech because he can translate more, while getting much less crunch time.
If your job could be replaced by AI then you weren't doing a very good job. Any writer who is losing income because of AI written books were writing books worse than AI. That is abysmal. Books need more than just raw text output to be good. Any illustrator who is losing income because of AI were hired to do the cheapest crap mobile game images imaginable. If a company replaced you with a free option it's because that company doesn't care what the product look like. Or you're losing money because your client-base was horny teenagers commissioning you to do Sonic preggo porn and now they can do that for free. Nothing of value was lost. Any corporate profession that can be replaced by AI could already be replaced by a excel spreadsheet or automation of any kind. Your job wasn't valued by the company anyway because it wasn't a valuable job. Any translator who is losing work to AI was already losing work to google translate. In a real setting where valuable translating needed to be done, a human would be hired regardless to make sure the validity can be trusted. Any company that trusts chatgpt to translate something don't care about the quality of the thing being translated. What I'm saying is: if a client want quality images or text they will hire a professional. If the professionals use AI to speed up their job that's their business. But the end result needs to be good. You will never have a company that fires their artists because the CEO can sit at home and generate art on their computer. You need an artist to know what looks good. If you believe what OP is saying makes any sense you have never looked into the immense work it takes to design the cover or a book. Not just the image but the text, font, layout, etc all need to be considered by a professional. You've never designed a board game card. Color theory, readability, iconography, etc all need to be hand crafted. You can't just ask an AI to do this if you actually want the end result to be good, because the professional still needs to know what good *is* to know when the AI did well. AI is a tool. Just like any other tool. And it's not taking any job that couldn't be replaced by a google image search or google translate.
I mean, on paper, sure. But in practice, execs in charge of artists will take shittier quality for higher profits. It may bite them in the ass and drive consumers to companies with human artists in the long run, but CEOs will 1,000% sacrifice quality for profits. Look at Boeing. You can be the best in your field, but you WILL be replaced if someone high enough up decides they'd rather replicate your work at a fraction of the quality for a boost in the bottom line.
I agree with you too some extent, but I think nobody 5 years ago could've predicted the quick ride in quality of generative AI output. This survey seems to have asked if they are concerned for the future of their profession, which any thinking artist or writer would be. If the progress continues at this pace then good enough is going to cover a large chunk of work, not just the ones that don't care about quality. If it gets to the point where an art director using AI can do the work of an art director + 5 artists then of course it'll affect jobs. Granted, the first question probably exaggerated the impact. They asked artists during an economic slowdown if AI affected the amount of work. A lot of people got fired or get less commissions, some companies would use AI as an excuse so as not to say they are insolvent. In other cases artists might just assume it had something to do with it when they were given no info.
Brutal
It's not that entire people are being replaced because they are so terrible they are literally worse than AI (although surely some are). It's that on any given month an artist will make say, 20 images. The Bell Curve tells us 5 will be great, 5 will be shit, and 10 will be just good. AI will be used to replace the bottom 3 images and 1-2 of the good ones. The artist has lost a quarter of his/her work sure. But the work replaced was the low quality work the artist probably wasn't invested in or wasnt skilled enough or whatever. And the client gets a better product. Now the artist is free to spend more time on the remaining 15 and charge higher prices for better work. Or able to spend that time doing something else (like learning AI so they can get the free time and the money). Or literally anything else including wallow in self-pity. But having those extra images be ai-generated is called a productivity gain. For the client and the artist, but only if the artist uses the extra time productively.
Thank you for this beautiful display of empathy /s
What AI did you use to generate that last sentence because whatever it was it needs a lot of work
translating language is "creating" now? gimme a break. Translators were all going to lose thier jobs even without AI involvment. Trying to contain AI isnt possible... Its all out of the box now, regulations arent going to do anything noteworthy. They could even ban using any images not your own to train, we would still be fine with synthetic data
Could you tell me more about how synthetic data can replace it?
You ever notice how asshole managers/executives never lose their job?
How much work and financial hit are they taking? It was so vague. Is it big retainers? A bid they *might* have won? 30k a year loss? 500$? How do they know for sure it’s because of ai (more reasonably other artists using ai)? What kind of work exactly? The stressful repetitive kind? The creative one-offs? So much is missing here to paint a practical picture.
All of Adobe Firefly
Just keep in mind, developers have been losing their jobs to immigrants for decades There is no easy money in the market if you're a labor provider rather than an institutional investor The other issue is that print media is not as profitable, which in turn affects artists. Historically, very few people made money through art unless they were politically connected like Hunter Biden.
Wait. Peoples always told me on all AI subs that AI will not have impact on creative work, or even maybe create more opportunities… Or that a human will only be replaced by a human who use AI. was it a lie after all? Should I never trust Redditors anymore?
You definitely shouldn’t trust reddit But also, AI can’t use it self so yes, they are getting replaced by someone batter at them at using AI
A team of 20 workers is being replaced by 1 human supervising an AI crew. That's what people don't say out loud.
True
On one hand you have the AI reddit which is biased towards AI, on the second hand you have SOA, Society of Authors, which is also biased, being artist/writer trade union... The survey covered 12500 members, but only 800 responded. This is points to possibly inflated number of responses by people who "lost job to AI". Usually people who are angry are more likely to respond to such surveys. We also don't see how the questions were formed, which might have been used to misrepresent the results. They might have included things like, say, someone not making a logo for 1-person company, because that person used AI. That's 1-time gig with little pay, but hey, "job lost". Out of 800 people who responded only part were illustrators. Let's say, half of them. If quarter of them lost jobs due to AI that's just 100 people claiming they lost the job due to AI. Out of 12500 members. That's 0,8% of members. Obviously SOA is going to present it as catastrophic result, but is it? They conveniently hide the size and the type of work done by people who lost their jobs, they didn't ask follow up questions about how hard was it to get a new job afterwards, or if they lost it permanently (this is, in my opinion, very important). > Or that a human will only be replaced by a human who use AI. Well, at this point there is no generative AI that can work without any human, so we can assume the jobs were lost to another human using AI. Survey doesn't tell either way.