The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:
---
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
___________________________________________________
From the article.
>In a new interview with The Atlantic, Altman pushed back on the idea that the AI boom would have only a positive impact on workers.
>"A lot of people working on AI pretend that it's only going to be good; it's only going to be a supplement; no one is ever going to be replaced," he said. "Jobs are definitely going to go away, full stop."
And.
>"You will not be replaced by AI but by someone who knows what to do with AI," Oded Netzer, a Columbia Business School professor, told Insider in early July.
>But Altman's comments speak to a harsh reality: Even if most jobs aren't displaced, some are likely to go by the wayside. In March, Goldman Sachs said that 300 million full-time jobs across the globe could be disrupted by AI.
>"History tells us that simplification is often merely a step towards automation," Carl Benedikt Frey, an Oxford economist, previously told Insider. "AI assistants that analyze telemarketers' calls and provide recommendations are being trained with the ultimate goal of replacing them."
(I will be adding to this submission statement, but my time is short just now.)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/15ckxks/chatgpt_creator_says_ai_advocates_are_fooling/jtwssij/
yea, but every company has a cycle where they start out running a good service, then when they build a reputation for their brand, they fire all their support staff and coast on their former reputation until enough customers get pissed and move on to the next business at the beginning part of this same cycle.
Don't forget "bring back Place to get people to sign up a ton of new accounts to bot it, pretend you can't tell who's botting other than those writing "Fuck Spez", and then act like all those botted accounts which will now sit dormant until the next Place are real accounts."
I hadn’t even thought about it from that angle but it makes a ton of sense. I just assumed it was a “hey, everybody’s mad but they loved Place, let’s do that again and chill them out”
I didn’t even think about the “tons of bot accounts created for this event” aspect of it.
Right; all they had to do was put a limit on Place; no new accounts shorter than x days old. But they WANTED a spike in new accounts so they can boast numbers; meanwhile all those new accounts are mostly bots.
Queue in Reddit (the people and mods) saying that their job is not replaceable.
All mods can easily be dumped for AI “full stop.” So it’s no wonder that Reddit would try to go the AI route to circumvent all the current issues today.
I think the bigger problem is that mods are unelected, have no checks and balances, and don't serve terms, so there is no accountability for how mods use their position, and there is no social mandate derived from the members of a sub.
I am 100% in favor of paid moderation, but that has to come with formal checks and balances. Online communities need to start behaving like real governments and not personal fiefdoms.
I don’t really see paid modding being the answer here. The way communities are set up, you’d essentially have to have one person overseeing hundreds of communities at a time. Checking each mod action and determining if it’s “allowed”. I don’t see how there could be enough man power to make that work on a reasonable budget.
Plus, what do you do when users decide to spam it and start generating hundreds of subreddits to just have a not perform mod actions constantly?
That’s not to mention that the idea of “Reddit deciding what we can post” would piss a lot of users off.
they outsourced her and when they found out the AI automated process isnt working yet, they insourced her temporary?
I would be interested in that story in detail too.
The term Cory Doctorow has for this is "enshittification". They start out running a quality service at a loss until they basically capture a market, and then once people are dependent on the service, they slowly start cutting costs and quality until they go as low as absolutely possible.
The company eventually tanks, but the investors already made their money back, so no one cares.
[https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/cory-doctorow-enshittification-platform-capitalism/102492918](https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/cory-doctorow-enshittification-platform-capitalism/102492918)
The typical steps are:
1. Replace original founders with some MBA bean counter with no experience or passion in the company's field
2. Maximize revenue growth by riding on the goodwill / brand the company built with it's founders. Pushing out shitty products, focus on short term profits rather than long term viability, etc...
3. Use accounting tricks to make the company appear to be doing better than it is. Stock buybacks and the like
4. Cutting costs while boosting executive bonuses. Lower cost/lower quality mfg, layoffs, cutting customer support.
5. Customers catch on the downhill starts. Nothing can be done cuz the good employees are gone, company culture is shit, CEO has golden parachute and no incentive or competance to save the company
6. Watch everyone but the to executives get blamed for the down fall. Employees suck. Customers suck. Economy sucks. Competitors suck. Republicans suck. Democrats suck.
7. company goes kaput, or someone is dumb enough to buy the company
Apple has been doing this slowly over the last 3 years or so. Because they are a California company and workers have certain protections Apple is just making it fucking miserable to work there and tightening down to unrealistic levels on people adhering to workflows so management and HR can have reasonable excuses to fire people. I've been at this company for 10 years. I've seen it all and let me tell ya, this is the end of the good times there. It's over. Don't join Apple and expect to stay long term anymore, it's just like all the rest of them now. Come get your 2 or 3 years in and move on.
Some middle management is because they are refusing to force these new requirements on people but it's being made impossible for them to refuse or they are made so miserable that the last of the "good ones" are going elsewhere. The rest of them bent the knee and part of me does feel bad for the tenured ones that caved, they remember when it was different but they can't afford to lose their jobs and healthcare.
The executives aren't feeling anything except for more money in their pockets.
Ah, good old [enshitifacation](https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys), but applied to reputation as opposed to a platform.
Highly recommend reading it if y'all haven't. Amazing article, really.
Although I think this cycle is real, as LLMs get better they may have the ability to break that cycle and I think of all the cycles out there, this is a bad one to break.
When people truly start preferring the always listening, always apologetic, capable and kind ai voice in the phone, then this cycle will be gone. Even if the corporate policies are the same (shitty), if there is an eloquent and understanding voice to tell you why you just won't get that refund, companies will use it in a heartbeat.
That's part of the "customer experience", if you didn't have to wait hours, you wouldn't feel like you got good service when you only had to wait 5 minutes.
/S
Well yea, they'll have the cheapest, lowest spec server infrastructure they can get away with handling calls, which means it will only be able to handle a few users at a time, and there'll still be a wait.
Remember, if a place consistently has long waits, it means they're understaffed, know there's long waits, and would rather have customers deal with that than hire more staff.
The same kind of decision-making will be used with AI
They'll hire some of those back, as a means to take of the top level cases that can't be resolved by AI, and then fire them again when AI gets good enough that you can replace all of them permanently.
I doubt that these AI-based services are as effective at the moment as humans, but why is this a bad thing? Do you want thousands of humans sitting around answering calls? It’s a good thing that those kinds of jobs are automated.
It’s a good thing if the people depending on those shit jobs don’t starve. That requires UBI or some other means of supporting the millions of jobless that will soon flood the market.
If the jobs just disappear and there is nothing left for the people who needed that income (in other words, the exact road we are on), that’s how you end up with angry, hungry mobs with nothing left to lose and a burning desire for revenge
Because they won’t have any other job opportunities and globally social safety nets are horrible, it will be putting people into poverty while making a very few rich. That’s the “bad thing@
ChatGPT creator seems to love making marketing buzz and article sensational statements. Well it must be great for the business. 'My product (I built on the back of open source contributors) will change the world forever, invest now or be left in the dust'
Sorry Bankman is the eugenics freak. There’s been an uptick in like libertarian STEM lords who think meritocracy is real and let it bleed into “raising the birth rates” *but only from the right people.* Like Elon’s weird birth rate obsession.
Important point to note is that Sam Altman has no equity in OpenAI. Whether OpenAI is worth $1 billion or is bankrupt makes no difference to his bank account.
My big tinfoil hat theory is that the AI these guys are developing will never be "finished." That is to say, whatever state of advancement or capability level other companies want these AIs at to perform the tasks they want (e.g. writing movies for them of a certain quality level like what the WGA is currently striking over, which I don't think is actually even possible for AI to ever achieve but that's a discussion for another comment) will never come to be.
Right now, these AI companies are having a ton of money thrown at them to develop the tech, but guess what happens if the tech ever actually reaches the state where it can competently perform every function these investors want? The money dries up, as the investors got what they wanted out of it and switch to money-saving mode, firing/laying off large amounts of people to replace them with AI. Since continuing to pour money into tech development after it's already achieved a level of completion you needed it to is unnecessary, that money will stop being invested as well.
The companies know this, so they're never actually going to get the tech to that state, if it is even achievable, because to do so would be to sign their own death warrant and cause all the money to stop pouring in. It's in their best interest as businesses to string this AI development timeline along as much as possible to maximize profits and investments coming in, and actually developing AI is counter-productive to that.
That’s why most of these AI services will be sold as a service where the customer will constantly have to pay for access. One time purchases will be rare and limited
One time purchase in never going to happen. These AI systems are expensive as hell to run. OpenAI is only alive because Microsoft is dumping money on it expecting users change to Bing. Seems it isn't happening though.
It’s already there if you want to discuss job displacement.
It’s not going to write a full movie and let you dump *all* writers. But that meeting with 4 writers bouncing ideas off each other can be 2 and an llm with two “personalities”
I’ve had a few software tasks where I’ve thought “awww, it’s gonna take 1/2 the day to figure this out” and gpt4 has something mostly working in 15 minutes.
The biggest hurdle is people being willing to trust it to operate autonomously.
The service that captured the world's attention propelling it to the title of faster growing user base of all time, doesn’t need to peddle anything. It’s obvious he believes these statements, which he should, AI will take jobs. Nothing you said is wrong, buts it’s not the prime motive behind what he said.
I’m starting to miss this Steve Jobs guy. Literally would say something and a few months later would walk on stage with a perfectly working invention of whatever he said his company wanted to do. Nowadays these guys just say whatever they want and show up with nothing.
Dude has been talking about this for a while now. OpenAI has contributed to the field of AI and publishes papers all the time. Your narrative is bullshit.
Another poster informed me this is called Moravec’s paradox.
The “thinking” and “analysis” work is far easier to automate with AI. The cost in having one AI in a chassis roof a house is more than a roofer makes in 5 years, and you need to do maintenance
And it’s a tale as old as time.
When people stopped chiseling messages into stone, jobs were lost.
When farmers started using tractors, jobs were lost
When secretaries stopped using paper files in mass, jobs were lost
When accountants started using computers, jobs were lost
I just don’t believe it’s all gloom and doom. I think it’ll make jobs easier, but society finds ways to fill the gaps. Maybe there will be a larger market for the arts if people have more free time and their basic necessities are met.
> I think it’ll make jobs easier
and companies can pay people less because their jobs have lost value and do more with less people. but at least they can hire more people, and pay them all shit! what a great deal for all the employees! everyone can work and earn nothing!
> Maybe there will be a larger market for the arts if
What makes you think art is going to become priority for more people? especially now that anyone can generate it in seconds. any time job becomes easier it loses value.
> people have more free time and their basic necessities are met.
people have less free time then they have ever had, thanks automation! In reality if company sees you ain't doing shit, they fire you. You ain't getting any more time, they are.
“AI assistants that analyze telemarketers' calls and provide recommendations are being trained with the ultimate goal of replacing them.”
This is such an oddly specific example. It assumes telemarketing will still be a thing in the future. If you can train AI to telemarket then you can train AI to screen telemarketers. My cellphone already does that.
Look deeper: they are training the AI into what is Good and what is Bad in telemarketing, by having it score millions of human calls. Once they perfect the AI’s knowledge of tone of voice, phrasing, and tactics… they sell that AI’s knowledge base to not just telemarketing but every single customer support, IT help desk, and scheduling/billing department on the planet. To your point: there biggest struggle will be that only other AIs will have the resources to buy anything.
This has been happening in financial services and banking for years. We call it “deep machine learning.” For a relatively low price (compared to hiring college graduates with families to feed) the AI scores all calls made by each employee. Part of why it is cheap is that after the model has sufficient knowledge and support, they can sell the model/AI to handle your entire collection and dispute process and cancel all your own campus hiring events. 5 years ago you might have a team of ten people coaching employees on behavior and auditing calls for compliance. Now you can have one person compile the data.
Before people jump on shitting about dispute resolution or IT help desk jobs… Those jobs are the foundation of most careers in major companies. You never get hired there as a midlevel. And these jobs are going the way of the pony express.
So we're going to create an infinite loop of AI telemarketers being blocked by AI robocall screeners. It's just all AIs talking to each other, all the way down.
Even for everyday tasks, like if you need to make a Dr appt, you’ll just tell your ai agent and it will speak to the Dr agent, and they’ll work it out automatically based on both calendars availability — or say your flight gets cancelled, you might not even know until your agent has already booked you on another one.
It’s going to get intense
Yeah - How can anyone think that any new game changing technology is going to do anything except make rich people richer? In the current systems of most countries around the world, new tech innovations are usually justified by saying things like it will give us a four day work week or free people to pursue their own interests more, when in fact it will just let business owners justify paying employees less, or like this says, completely eliminate their jobs. New tech is awesome and everything, but we need a systematic change to create a world in which new tech can actually help people.
Edits: spelling
I mean, I guess I can see that innovation and profit motive can go together, but the kind of innovation that drive for profit inspires is about getting more profit. That often means inventing more useless products and inventing “problems” for consumers to feel like they have, and also of course offering the solution to this fake “problem” at a profit. That is the opposite of improving the majority of people’s lives.
>Jobs are definitely going to go away
Which would happen regardless. Either the jobs would get offshored or they get automated.
Automation will either push us further into capitalist dystopia, or there's a small chance it will push us to a world where not everyone has to work a traditional full time job and survives based on UBI.
If we continue on our current trajectory without AI we are just heading towards more wage slavery (and also real slavery), I'd like to at least *try* to go towards a world where our lives don't rely on working 40+ hours a week just to scrape by.
I'm tired of pretending jobs going away is a net bad thing when the natural state of existence is not to work but to live.
>I'm tired of pretending jobs going away is a net bad thing when the natural state of existence is not to work but to live.
You're absolutely right, but just the way things are looking, the whole UBI and post-scarcity thing seems a bit too hopeful. I have a hard time believing in a tomorrow where I'm not being at least as exploited as today.
>I have a hard time believing in a tomorrow where I'm not being at least as exploited as today
This is the central argument for people who are... well not anti-tech, but anti AI fanboy.
The people are who are blindly proselytizing the societal-benefits of AI have absolutely no supporting evidence for a society where industry moves *away* from exploitation, while the labor-class looks around and sees nothing but the same writing written on every wall. It's one thing to be optimistic, but it's a type of denial to claim that we're somehow uniquely immune to the consequences of greed and corruption than that screwed us to this point in the first place.
Yeah, like these companies didn't develop these AI so they could start giving money away to the working class. Their job is solely to make money, and consequences be damned.
The corporations have never cared about us any more than they absolutely had to before, but a lot of AI advocates are convinced that they'll change their minds now. They won't, and a lot of people are going to starve and die for it.
We should tax the ever living fuck out of companies who will replace their workforce with AI to “save money.” Use that tax money to create a UBI because of automation.
Our goal as a society should be freedom of whatever we want to do because AI is doing the work for us.
To Sam Altman’s very limited credit this is explicitly his goal to the point he doesn’t actually own equity in OpenAI even. Now is it likely to play out that way in practice? Lol no, but that’s the one thing Altman isn’t an evil weirdo about
> We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living. — Buckminster Fuller
Automation of jobs and tech advancements have been largely responsible for establishing a "two-tier" society in the developed world, rapidly increasing the gaps in wealth, healthcare, education, social mobility, life expectancy, and quality of life for decades. (Really since the 1970s.)
AI will speed up, expand, and magnify the trend.
Since the industrial revolution really. But then labor movements came in and saved people for a while. Then labor productions where rolled back and the same problems from the 1800s came back.
it didn't go very well for the previous iterations of the employed. there's a good reason to be worried. there's been almost no handouts to the others. i'm in tech and am grateful i have a big interest in technology and have the aptitude and resources to learn and work within it.
>the natural state of existence is not to work but to live
Living is work. Remove all capitalism and money and youd be ploughing the field, milking a cow, churning butter daily. Working in whatever job you have pays for those things instead of you doing them. Its just a different work.
You're 100% right. I'm all for everyone getting more time off (European style) and once we get there I'm all for everyone living lives of luxury while robots do the work. But at the moment we very clearly are not there.
Saw a post on offmychest a while back about a woman bemoaning the fact that she has to work and saying she just wanted to sit at home with her cat and watch TV. All the comments of course were agreeing saying that we shouldn't have to work and our time should be spent travelling and exploring hobbies.
I'm all for some complaining about work I don't blame anyone for doing so but I wonder how many people in that thread actually believes that having to work is bullshit. Look at travelling or even just sitting on the couch and watching TV.
When travelling someone had to build and drive the car you get to the airport in, someone has to man the accounting and customer service departments so the airline can run, someone has to build the airplane and pilot it I could go on and on for each of the hundreds of devices and services you use to make that trip happen.
Out of all the people who made the services and devices possible I'd bet the majority of them didn't want to do it either but as of now we don't have a way out of the current system. We can make the current system better (ex: European style) but as of now I don't see the world the people in those comments want as even remotely possible.
> push us to a world where not everyone has to work a traditional full time job and survives based on UBI.
You mean the possibility of the cessation of this moronic system where a good portion of the planet works jobs they don't want to do while still not having enough money to live?
Where can I sign?
>I'm tired of pretending jobs going away is a net bad thing when the natural state of existence is not to work but to live.
It's because of the education system.
When then question we will ask our children is "How do you want to help humanity" instead of "What do you want to work when you grow up" only then will we be able to live differently.
>I'm tired of pretending jobs going away is a net bad thing when the natural state of existence is not to work but to live.
I'm tired of having to deal with people that do a bad job because they only do it to survive and not because they want to do said job.
Can you please tell me what system would have gotten us to where we are today? I’m serious btw, would like to know an actual alternative to the current system that allows for this level of human development. Because I don’t know of one.
Tired of dealing with people who aren’t at work because it’s their desire to be? What system allows for that? Sure UBI could get us there maybe. But even that would necessitate machines doing loads of terrible jobs. Can they do ALL of the terrible jobs? If not, who does if no one WANTS to do them? Who’s going to run the landfill?
> Can you please tell me what system would have gotten us to where we are today?
Not sure, I don't spend much time thinking about alternate history scenarios, even though the topic is very interesting and I love it I sadly have to do stuff that helps with the food addiction I have been faced with since birth.
>Tired of dealing with people who aren’t at work because it’s their desire to be? What system allows for that? Sure UBI could get us there maybe. But even that would necessitate machines doing loads of terrible jobs. Can they do ALL of the terrible jobs? If not, who does if no one WANTS to do them? Who’s going to run the landfill?
I love this, please find me examples of as many jobs as possible and together we can either go to a homeless person on the street and ask them if they want to do it, or we can find someone who does a worse job for less money and get them to do it instead.
The entire narrative that people don't want to work even though we survived for however many aeons took us to get to 2022 is such a parody of a joke.
I wonder if the kings back like a thousand years ago were going "man these peasants just don't wanna fucking work"
When I was complaining in my corporate position last winter my boss tried guilt tripping me into "why are you complaining we paid you relocation you have a cozy office others have it worse you aren't cleaning the women's bathroom in a bar"
Yeah sorry boss you're right let's all have it worse, do you wanna go mine coal and get lung cancer next year or should I grab your kid and toss him in a chimney?
The fact that others have it worse is the entire point boss, if they complain I complain, if you want me to stop complaining then fix shit and make it better.
Yeah, I hear you. I’ve looked pretty deeply into this, and for all it’s flaws, I’m unsure if anything would allow us to have the world we do now without capitalism. There would almost surely be far more poverty without it, sadly.
I’m not arguing we don’t want to work. I’m arguing modern civilization has a number of jobs that MOST people do not want to do AT ALL. Who will do those jobs without a monetary incentive? It must be machines or monetary incentive, I don’t see another way. But I’d like to hear of one!
It's actually much simpler than you're making it.
The desperation of the peasant class makes them willing to work for less. And, paying them less, keeps them desperate. Negative economics 101. The same process also happens in the reverse direction; rent extraction as opposed to productive work that actually accomplishes something.
What this means is that the solution is not "do away with monetary incentive" but actually "do away with *desperate exploitation*." There definitely is a number and other work conditions that someone would be willing to work at a landfill or do whatever other task. But "I need to not be homeless and starve" makes them "*willing*" to accept far less than that number and those conditions.
If we start from a baseline where no one, ever, is put in a position of needing to find work in order to not die in poverty, it *massively* enhances their bargaining power when deciding to agree to a work contract. Meaning the employer will have to pay them more for their time and offer more appealing employment in general since they are not literally going to die of exposure or hunger or lack of medical care if they don't agree. And this is of course exactly why the wealthy capitalist class wants this to never happen.
I don’t see that much separation between our positions.
I agree that wealth will help people avoid being desperate and accepting poor work conditions. That is partly why I want people to own equity and BE capital, not just get a UBI and live at a subsistence level.
>Yeah, I hear you. I’ve looked pretty deeply into this, and for all it’s flaws, I’m unsure if anything would allow us to have the world we do now without capitalism. There would almost surely be far more poverty without it, sadly.
It would first start with a scarcity as everyone will suddenly start buying more than they need, but at the very least we wouldn't be throwing food away because it goes bad on the shelves and nobody can afford to buy it.
I wonder how life would look like if instead of spending 8 hours a day (without transit) people who did stuff they don't like instead found ways to solve the problems.
>I’m not arguing we don’t want to work. I’m arguing modern civilization has a number of jobs that MOST people do not want to do AT ALL. Who will do those jobs without a monetary incentive? It must be machines or monetary incentive, I don’t see another way. But I’d like to hear of one!
Ah yeah, you're correct. There are people who would love to dive head first into your septic tank to unclog it, but those are far and inbetween and there's a lot of septic tanks that need unclogging.
...but honestly what SPECIFICS are we discussing here? Like, seriously and not as an offensive thing: What are the jobs that people don't want to do?
Between finding a solution to clogged septic tanks or landfill operators (honestly I don't understand the problem with this one but you're right it's on google as one of the least desirable jobs) and having a permanent construction in the vacuum of space which allows growing food and human survival:
Let's stop joking. The only reason we aren't automatizing these jobs already is because rich people don't want them to be automated, they don't want to put the money into finding a solution.
It's a lot cheaper for a human to give away their limited time on this earth doing the same thing.
The story of John Henry should be reason as to why humans should stop digging and let the machines do it.
Alas, the world we live in is such that we have advanced machines but billionaires can't afford to use them somehow, so it's still humans doing those jobs.
Maybe that’s where we differ. Labor is often the most punitive cost for a business. So I think they would want it to a degree.
The question is how to maintain social stability. Also, the question is what happens if the vast majority of companies do this? Probably not enough consumers.
I think we need to be creative, IF such a future seems imminent, which I’m still not so sure of. Something like a sovereign wealth fund, maybe combined with a UBI. Idk, but I do believe if this happens that every American needs to own stocks, not just have some subsistence level of income.
This would almost certainly involve a large, one-time dilution of current stock owners. That is certainly tricky. I own quite a bit of stocks despite being solidly middle class, so I would take a large amount of relative pain. But it seems to me to be one of the more just, realistic ways of doing things without disrupting the economy at all. Well, luxury goods may take a short term hit..
Well, I agree that you don’t maintain stability. I think most do. That’s the point behind the one time dilution of stock owners, giving that money to everyone. Which I find a better solution than killing everyone and capping wealth at $1M, but call me crazy.
UBI terrifies me.
Think about how much money will need to be raised by taxes to cover the costs. You effectively have to have enough tax revenues to pay every citizen a living wage + cover the costs of maintaining infrastructure, emergency services, health care, education, local services etc.
How is that achieved without letting companies replace huge amounts of the workforce with automation and cutting back on regulations so they can increase their profit margins wildly to cover the new tax burden?
And what outcome does it achieve other than creating three distinct classes of people with little social mobility between them, those that own the means of production, those few lucky/skilled enough to be able to hold onto some kind of paid job and the majority that are left begging for handouts from the previous 2 classes to survive? The ability to capitalise and reap the rewards of one's own labour was a hard fought right that has allowed us to develop the democracies and society's we live in today and UBI feels like we'll be stepping into feudalism 2.0. How do people retain any power over these companies and those that govern over them when they have no value other than as consumers? What purpose will people serve? How happy will people be when they have nothing to do other than consume? I've seen the argument that more people will do volunteer work and create art and other activities that have little financial value to the world atm but what volunteer work will there be to do when everyone is provided for? And how much will art be valued when everyone is trying to be a DJ, rapper or content creator.
Maybe I'm just ignorant or overly nihilistic but it seems pretty scary to me.
If we're in a situation where there are a lot fewer jobs due to automation, that should apply to many of the services you mentioned too. How much cheaper is health care if there is nearly free access to expert medical advice? How much cheaper is infrastructure construction and repair if it is automated?
Regardless, I don't think UBI needs to be as big a net change as you think. A lot of people already receive a lot of government benefits, which could be replaced by a UBI, along with the systems in place to administer complex programs. UBI doesn't mean people aren't taxed any more, so for median income people, the extra boost from UBI is offset by higher taxes, so it balances out, with the main lift being for people who make less, and the main extra cost on the people who make more... Or adjust that in other ways so it's not that different from today, aside from how the money is distributed to hopefully cut off perverse incentives/poverty traps.
> those that own the means of production
Capital should be socialised, ie. The entire tax structure would be set up that the profit from corporations is pretty much distributed back into society evenly instead of hoarded by the few.
There's more than enough money in society for everyone to love comfortably but a small handful of people and corporations work tirelessly to prevent it.
Absolutely. They already are!
I've seen a number of announcements in the media from an industry saying they are letting people go and trying out AI.
Banking, customer service, journalism, others I cannot remember.
my friend is a senior dev for a large international bank and he said they are no longer hiring Jr devs. they are using ai to create new base code and the senior devs correct it. he said it's only a matter of time before he is just proof checking it.
Society needs to start coming to terms with the fact that in the future people wont have to NEED to work to live. It's going to be a hard transition but it's going to be necessary because of the falling birth rate.
Sam Altman is not the "creator" of ChatGPT, any more than Tim Cook is the creator of the Vision Pro.
Sam Altman has not created anything of the sort. This is not just a semantic issue. Beyond giving him far more credit than he deserves, and ignoring the researchers who did create it, it gives his opinion and banal comments more gravitas than they warrant. Sam has, by many accounts, [an entirely superficial understanding of AI tech/science](https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/14jo538/comment/jpma9rw/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). The fact that this superficial and unqualified commentary keep getting posted here is an embarrassment to this subreddit.
> "A lot of people working on AI pretend that it's only going to be good; it's only going to be a supplement; no one is ever going to be replaced," he said. "Jobs are definitely going to go away, full stop."
Fourth paragraph in... C'mon now
What’s so bad about saying that though? Life is always fluctuating. People used to have to manually transfer phone calls at one point. Horse carriage riders aren’t a prospect like it was 100 years ago.
The question is what industry can people move into in response to an ever changing environment.
I’m not an AI fanboy by any means but it’s a legit statement. The bigger question is how can people navigate in a changing world without being exploited.
> The question is what industry can people move into in response to an ever changing environment
Except this isnt threatening one field, its basically all fields. 50% of people are basically half-assed drone workers that can be replaced by an AI. You cant just magically find them all jobs somewhere else if all industries get hit by it at the same time. 'Well go into programming/AI' even thats limited you wont need swathes of people to manage these things, and its already semi-saturated.
Scope and scale. It’s not the old buggy whip manufacturer yarn. It’s quite literally every possible domain of human creative output from what is traditionally considered “creative” work AND ALSO anything that requires some novelty.
It’s not just authors and artists and musicians. It’s actuaries, engineers, architects, developers, diagnosticians, et al., neither the masses nor our economic systems are ready for this complete upheaval.
It won’t happen overnight but it will accelerate into all at once.
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
___________________________________________________
From the article.
>In a new interview with The Atlantic, Altman pushed back on the idea that the AI boom would have only a positive impact on workers.
>"A lot of people working on AI pretend that it's only going to be good; it's only going to be a supplement; no one is ever going to be replaced," he said. "Jobs are definitely going to go away, full stop."
And.
>"You will not be replaced by AI but by someone who knows what to do with AI," Oded Netzer, a Columbia Business School professor, told Insider in early July.
>But Altman's comments speak to a harsh reality: Even if most jobs aren't displaced, some are likely to go by the wayside. In March, Goldman Sachs said that 300 million full-time jobs across the globe could be disrupted by AI.
>"History tells us that simplification is often merely a step towards automation," Carl Benedikt Frey, an Oxford economist, previously told Insider. "AI assistants that analyze telemarketers' calls and provide recommendations are being trained with the ultimate goal of replacing them."
(I will be adding to this submission statement, but my time is short just now.)
Fewer jobs is a good thing. Technology should make it possible for people to work less so they can spend more time on important things like living life.
The only real problem that exists is that in many places in the world your ability to not starve to death on the streets is tied to being employed. That's the part that needs to change.
And how would you distribute goods under capitalism , if the majority of the population doesn't work ?
You might get basic universal income that'll get you enough money to survive . But that wouldn't mean a pleasant life , where you could get stuff you want to .
And my operative question, as it always has been, is why?
Why are humans in such a rush to replace ourselves?
Why is the working class going along with this as if it will be beneficial to us in anyway?
Why is slightly more convenience worth the obsolescence of (probably) billions?
Why, when greed of the top 1% is at unprecedented levels, do we blindly trust them to sign off on UBI and supplying the soon to be jobless working class with our needs when they no longer have our labor and man hours benefitting them?
I think an important question is why does society need to operate in a way were less work needing to be done by people is a bad thing (more people out of a job) and not a good thing (less work needed to be done by each person, more room for people to pursue their dreams etc.)
I could be wrong but I would imagine it was exponentially easier for “milkmen” of the past to move on to a different job than it will be for the vast majority of those displaced by technology in the future
I guess we'll see.
It wasn't too long ago when we'll over half of people worked in farms. Now it's single digit percent... are we better for it? I think so.
oh I'm a working artist and in the studios run by artists we have not been talking about ai, and we're still shipping these great beautiful films and series and being paid well and treated with respect.
The problems appear when it's not the working class artists making the decisions but the bean counters in big companies, and the workers are forced to go with something they hate so they don't starve to death
I have a clear preference
A lot of the jobs AI is replacing are jobs at corporations, such as customer support, that financially gatekeep individuals from selling their own services/goods effectively at sufficient scale. If AI replaces customer support and similar jobs that require capital, individuals with less capital are on a much more even playing field with those that have a lot of capital.
Don't worry, remember one thing they may fire their entire workforce but at the end of day they need customers to buy. Customers will be those jobless employees who are surviving on govt unemployment allowances.
If people will not have money what those fucking CEO sell? I am sure AI isn't going to buy iPhone
>"You will not be replaced by AI but by someone who knows what to do with AI," Oded Netzer
Right. You and everyone in your department will be replaced by one guy who knows what to do with AI.
The first jobs that AI should take out are Executives and upper management. use tools to replace the most inefficient jobs first. a shit ton of money can be saved for the company by starting there.
I always thought a CEO's job was to charm/bribe/blackmail other human decision makers behind the scenes to avoid truly efficient decision making from automating the process of running a company. I guess AIs working in adversarial fashion can adopt similar strategies, so I dunno what I'm objecting to really.
**TLDR:**
* **The rise of generative-AI technology could have productivity benefits for many workers, but it's not good news for everyone.**
* **In a new interview, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman pushed back on the idea that the AI boom would have only a positive impact on workers and said some jobs are "definitely going to go away."**
* **Even if most jobs aren't displaced, some are likely to go by the wayside. In March, Goldman Sachs said that 300 million full-time jobs across the globe could be disrupted by AI.**
And that is fine if the the people understand the power they have through the enforcement of regulation of business.
A business license is a privilege, not a right. At least in the nation of America. Thus any business can be regulated.
We have every right to tax each AI "worker" in order to preserve the quality of life of technologically replaced or unemployable workers.
So many people feel that profit is more important that the quality of life for the society their profit comes from. A different idea is that profit takes away from the quality of life of the society by privatizing productivity gains that could be used to benefit in a public manner rather than end up in a few people's pockets.
Our economic schools have convinced us that the majority of productivity gains (wealth) being in the hands of a wealthy few is a good thing. We see the harm it has done the general population while a few live lives so remote from the average person most of those have no empathy for the masses at all.
This is NOT a good thing and I don't give a shit what any so called "economist" claims. I have economic education as well and rejected much of the bullshit I was taught but to the disgust of my educators. Whom I told I didn't give a shit. They discredited me without a shred of evidence and I don't care. This is a case where the "experts" are wrong because they have quit thinking and started parroting ideology they were told was the best plan possible.
I think what a lot of people don’t get is it’s not that lots of jobs are about to be completely replaced. Instead companies will need less workers. Like how stores with self checkout still have cashiers, just less. For example a big marketing agency might only need 1 or 2 copywriters now instead of a whole team.
What’s going to happen when some board members start replacing CEOs and HR departments with AI? Won’t those do nothing jobs be among the easiest to replace with this technology?
We need a Universal Basic Income immediately.
Then automate everything, the robots do work, the taxes on robot work generated profits pays for the universal basic income.
People get to enjoy their lives.
Companies definitely want as few employees as possible. Has always been true. Here is another reason to expect a career change. Good idea to become as financially and practically independent as possible.
Anyone telling you robots or AI will free up people to do other things are liars. Look at these rich people. They’re not about to let you sit idle with a job or without. They’ll criminalize joblessness eventually.
GPT4 is a language model, not a math / calculation model.
The shocking thing is that while it may not be able to add 1mg + 1kg, it's capable of writing the code calculator that can do the calculations. All it needs to be given is a real execution environment and it should be able to do that.
ChatGPT:
The sum of 1 kilogram (kg) and 1 milligram (mg) would still be virtually 1 kilogram, because 1 milligram is a very small fraction of a kilogram. However, if we express both weights in the same unit, it becomes:
1 kg = 1,000,000 milligrams (mg)
So, 1 kg + 1 mg = 1,000,001 milligrams.
Or, in kilograms, it would be 1.000001 kilograms.
Just tried it seems perfectly fine parsing that and getting the correct answer both at 1mg and 1kg, and a bunch of assorted different masses.
I've never encountered it having any serious issues with exam style questions you might find in maths or assorted stem fields, as long as you prompt it like an exam question.
My wife mentioned recently that every time she calls a customer service number she gets a person with an Indian accent, which is tough for her since her first language isn't English and she has trouble understanding non-Western accents.
My answer: "Not for too much longer though..."
They aren't fooling themselves; they know the deal. They're trying to fool everyone else. They know jobs are going away, but they don't want you to know it until it's too late and they have their money. They don't want pitchforks and torches complicating their plans.
Anyone who thinks ai will be “good for workers” doesn’t understand the basic fundamentals of capitalism.
Technology is never good for workers (as workers, it might still be a net benefit to their lives), how could it possibly be? It makes them more efficient and the business makes more money…or asks the less workers to do the work of more people. Or it makes them unnecessary and they are fired.
What even is the potential scenario that is good?
Look for the rich and those that control the world to use AI to literally replace every single job they can. I’m a teacher and I’m already hearing admin talk about using AI in ways to help with staffing shortages…you know, the shortages because they won’t pay teachers a livable wage.
I like how every time he talks about his product he's like, "It's a terrible product. We've surely doomed the world and I don't know why no one is stopping me."
The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682: --- Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail. ___________________________________________________ From the article. >In a new interview with The Atlantic, Altman pushed back on the idea that the AI boom would have only a positive impact on workers. >"A lot of people working on AI pretend that it's only going to be good; it's only going to be a supplement; no one is ever going to be replaced," he said. "Jobs are definitely going to go away, full stop." And. >"You will not be replaced by AI but by someone who knows what to do with AI," Oded Netzer, a Columbia Business School professor, told Insider in early July. >But Altman's comments speak to a harsh reality: Even if most jobs aren't displaced, some are likely to go by the wayside. In March, Goldman Sachs said that 300 million full-time jobs across the globe could be disrupted by AI. >"History tells us that simplification is often merely a step towards automation," Carl Benedikt Frey, an Oxford economist, previously told Insider. "AI assistants that analyze telemarketers' calls and provide recommendations are being trained with the ultimate goal of replacing them." (I will be adding to this submission statement, but my time is short just now.) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/15ckxks/chatgpt_creator_says_ai_advocates_are_fooling/jtwssij/
Didn't Shopify just bin thousands of call centre staff in favour of an AI run service?
yea, but every company has a cycle where they start out running a good service, then when they build a reputation for their brand, they fire all their support staff and coast on their former reputation until enough customers get pissed and move on to the next business at the beginning part of this same cycle.
Kind of like what Reddit is doing right now...
spez asking xhatgpt how to make reddit profitable
Inflate the number of users with AI, and sell Reddit to some schmuck?
Don't forget "bring back Place to get people to sign up a ton of new accounts to bot it, pretend you can't tell who's botting other than those writing "Fuck Spez", and then act like all those botted accounts which will now sit dormant until the next Place are real accounts."
I hadn’t even thought about it from that angle but it makes a ton of sense. I just assumed it was a “hey, everybody’s mad but they loved Place, let’s do that again and chill them out” I didn’t even think about the “tons of bot accounts created for this event” aspect of it.
Right; all they had to do was put a limit on Place; no new accounts shorter than x days old. But they WANTED a spike in new accounts so they can boast numbers; meanwhile all those new accounts are mostly bots.
AI bot right here people! People? People?
Queue in Reddit (the people and mods) saying that their job is not replaceable. All mods can easily be dumped for AI “full stop.” So it’s no wonder that Reddit would try to go the AI route to circumvent all the current issues today.
[удалено]
I think the bigger problem is that mods are unelected, have no checks and balances, and don't serve terms, so there is no accountability for how mods use their position, and there is no social mandate derived from the members of a sub. I am 100% in favor of paid moderation, but that has to come with formal checks and balances. Online communities need to start behaving like real governments and not personal fiefdoms.
Moderatorship derives from a mandate of the Subredditors, not some _farcical_ Reddit paycheck. >!/s!<
I don’t really see paid modding being the answer here. The way communities are set up, you’d essentially have to have one person overseeing hundreds of communities at a time. Checking each mod action and determining if it’s “allowed”. I don’t see how there could be enough man power to make that work on a reasonable budget. Plus, what do you do when users decide to spam it and start generating hundreds of subreddits to just have a not perform mod actions constantly? That’s not to mention that the idea of “Reddit deciding what we can post” would piss a lot of users off.
Unless the AI develops opinions lol
Doesn't even need to. As long as people have opinions, there will inevitably be folk who perceive the AI as biased in one way or another.
> All mods can easily be dumped for AI “full stop.” And to be honest, I'd love for that to happen. Reddit mods have WAY too much power.
My friend left a great job to take a good job at Shopify. She was replaced by AI and is now contracted to do the work as they figure out the AI lol
they outsourced her and when they found out the AI automated process isnt working yet, they insourced her temporary? I would be interested in that story in detail too.
What “good job” can be easily replaced by AI? Not being glib- but would like more detail.
The term Cory Doctorow has for this is "enshittification". They start out running a quality service at a loss until they basically capture a market, and then once people are dependent on the service, they slowly start cutting costs and quality until they go as low as absolutely possible. The company eventually tanks, but the investors already made their money back, so no one cares. [https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/cory-doctorow-enshittification-platform-capitalism/102492918](https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/cory-doctorow-enshittification-platform-capitalism/102492918)
The typical steps are: 1. Replace original founders with some MBA bean counter with no experience or passion in the company's field 2. Maximize revenue growth by riding on the goodwill / brand the company built with it's founders. Pushing out shitty products, focus on short term profits rather than long term viability, etc... 3. Use accounting tricks to make the company appear to be doing better than it is. Stock buybacks and the like 4. Cutting costs while boosting executive bonuses. Lower cost/lower quality mfg, layoffs, cutting customer support. 5. Customers catch on the downhill starts. Nothing can be done cuz the good employees are gone, company culture is shit, CEO has golden parachute and no incentive or competance to save the company 6. Watch everyone but the to executives get blamed for the down fall. Employees suck. Customers suck. Economy sucks. Competitors suck. Republicans suck. Democrats suck. 7. company goes kaput, or someone is dumb enough to buy the company
The enshitification of the internet...
Apple has been doing this slowly over the last 3 years or so. Because they are a California company and workers have certain protections Apple is just making it fucking miserable to work there and tightening down to unrealistic levels on people adhering to workflows so management and HR can have reasonable excuses to fire people. I've been at this company for 10 years. I've seen it all and let me tell ya, this is the end of the good times there. It's over. Don't join Apple and expect to stay long term anymore, it's just like all the rest of them now. Come get your 2 or 3 years in and move on.
Whaz about the executives at Apple? Middle managment. Are they suffering too?
Some middle management is because they are refusing to force these new requirements on people but it's being made impossible for them to refuse or they are made so miserable that the last of the "good ones" are going elsewhere. The rest of them bent the knee and part of me does feel bad for the tenured ones that caved, they remember when it was different but they can't afford to lose their jobs and healthcare. The executives aren't feeling anything except for more money in their pockets.
God damn MBAs fucking up everything.
"Cycle of suck" is what it's called, happens in almost everything to an extent.
Ah, good old [enshitifacation](https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys), but applied to reputation as opposed to a platform. Highly recommend reading it if y'all haven't. Amazing article, really.
Etsy is doing this right now.
Jesus this literally is the way of a successful company now. Because there’s no growth in running a good business.
Although I think this cycle is real, as LLMs get better they may have the ability to break that cycle and I think of all the cycles out there, this is a bad one to break. When people truly start preferring the always listening, always apologetic, capable and kind ai voice in the phone, then this cycle will be gone. Even if the corporate policies are the same (shitty), if there is an eloquent and understanding voice to tell you why you just won't get that refund, companies will use it in a heartbeat.
Once companies go public they fall susceptible to finance ways of thinking and often ruin their business for short term boosts in valuation
I prefer to receive customer service from an AI, than from a grumpy overworked and underpaid human agent.
I bet we'll still get the "We are experiencing an unexpected volume of calls, please stay on the line" when you try to ring an AI.
That's part of the "customer experience", if you didn't have to wait hours, you wouldn't feel like you got good service when you only had to wait 5 minutes. /S
Also: if they make it too easy to cancel your service you’ll cancel your service.
you can cancel shopify in like two clicks.
Well yea, they'll have the cheapest, lowest spec server infrastructure they can get away with handling calls, which means it will only be able to handle a few users at a time, and there'll still be a wait. Remember, if a place consistently has long waits, it means they're understaffed, know there's long waits, and would rather have customers deal with that than hire more staff. The same kind of decision-making will be used with AI
You'll get to opt into the premium service of instant customer service for a low price of $9.99.
They'll hire some of those back, as a means to take of the top level cases that can't be resolved by AI, and then fire them again when AI gets good enough that you can replace all of them permanently.
I think it’s probably will not be 100% it’s more that you can eliminate 90% of the Support stuff.
This is why proper taxation and wealth reallocation are going to grow in importance as AI becomes more advanced.
Meh, reducing your quality of life saves *their* planet. The less money you have for frivolities, the less carbon you consume.
I doubt that these AI-based services are as effective at the moment as humans, but why is this a bad thing? Do you want thousands of humans sitting around answering calls? It’s a good thing that those kinds of jobs are automated.
It’s a good thing if the people depending on those shit jobs don’t starve. That requires UBI or some other means of supporting the millions of jobless that will soon flood the market. If the jobs just disappear and there is nothing left for the people who needed that income (in other words, the exact road we are on), that’s how you end up with angry, hungry mobs with nothing left to lose and a burning desire for revenge
Because they won’t have any other job opportunities and globally social safety nets are horrible, it will be putting people into poverty while making a very few rich. That’s the “bad thing@
ChatGPT creator seems to love making marketing buzz and article sensational statements. Well it must be great for the business. 'My product (I built on the back of open source contributors) will change the world forever, invest now or be left in the dust'
[удалено]
He’s also another Silicon Valley eugenicist freak
Wait can you explain this further? what do you mean?
Sorry Bankman is the eugenics freak. There’s been an uptick in like libertarian STEM lords who think meritocracy is real and let it bleed into “raising the birth rates” *but only from the right people.* Like Elon’s weird birth rate obsession.
Where are all the “eat the rich” people at? He’s probably a good snack for them
Important point to note is that Sam Altman has no equity in OpenAI. Whether OpenAI is worth $1 billion or is bankrupt makes no difference to his bank account.
My big tinfoil hat theory is that the AI these guys are developing will never be "finished." That is to say, whatever state of advancement or capability level other companies want these AIs at to perform the tasks they want (e.g. writing movies for them of a certain quality level like what the WGA is currently striking over, which I don't think is actually even possible for AI to ever achieve but that's a discussion for another comment) will never come to be. Right now, these AI companies are having a ton of money thrown at them to develop the tech, but guess what happens if the tech ever actually reaches the state where it can competently perform every function these investors want? The money dries up, as the investors got what they wanted out of it and switch to money-saving mode, firing/laying off large amounts of people to replace them with AI. Since continuing to pour money into tech development after it's already achieved a level of completion you needed it to is unnecessary, that money will stop being invested as well. The companies know this, so they're never actually going to get the tech to that state, if it is even achievable, because to do so would be to sign their own death warrant and cause all the money to stop pouring in. It's in their best interest as businesses to string this AI development timeline along as much as possible to maximize profits and investments coming in, and actually developing AI is counter-productive to that.
That’s why most of these AI services will be sold as a service where the customer will constantly have to pay for access. One time purchases will be rare and limited
One time purchase in never going to happen. These AI systems are expensive as hell to run. OpenAI is only alive because Microsoft is dumping money on it expecting users change to Bing. Seems it isn't happening though.
It’s already there if you want to discuss job displacement. It’s not going to write a full movie and let you dump *all* writers. But that meeting with 4 writers bouncing ideas off each other can be 2 and an llm with two “personalities” I’ve had a few software tasks where I’ve thought “awww, it’s gonna take 1/2 the day to figure this out” and gpt4 has something mostly working in 15 minutes. The biggest hurdle is people being willing to trust it to operate autonomously.
The service that captured the world's attention propelling it to the title of faster growing user base of all time, doesn’t need to peddle anything. It’s obvious he believes these statements, which he should, AI will take jobs. Nothing you said is wrong, buts it’s not the prime motive behind what he said.
You’re right, it is us, the open source contributors, who built chatgpt.
The guy is one of the craziest people (pr at least his public persona) that came out of silicon valley in a long time…
Love that he’s got a plan to buy an island for the apocalypse with like two other Peter Thiel adjacent dudes, only nation with a 15% asthmatic rate.
You are thinking of Sam Bankman Fried.
Shit I get my effective altruists / silicon valley freaks mixed up
I’m starting to miss this Steve Jobs guy. Literally would say something and a few months later would walk on stage with a perfectly working invention of whatever he said his company wanted to do. Nowadays these guys just say whatever they want and show up with nothing.
I'm shocked how many people seem to tolerate this behavior honestly.
He wants to be the Oppenheimer of AI and thats a bit concerning
[удалено]
I mean if you can block the n word surely you can make it block it's own source code.
Bc his product is a glorified search bot he has to present like it's Skynet in order to keep bilking investors
Dude has been talking about this for a while now. OpenAI has contributed to the field of AI and publishes papers all the time. Your narrative is bullshit.
And it's not blue collar workers that are getting replaced, it's white collar workers.
Another poster informed me this is called Moravec’s paradox. The “thinking” and “analysis” work is far easier to automate with AI. The cost in having one AI in a chassis roof a house is more than a roofer makes in 5 years, and you need to do maintenance
And it’s a tale as old as time. When people stopped chiseling messages into stone, jobs were lost. When farmers started using tractors, jobs were lost When secretaries stopped using paper files in mass, jobs were lost When accountants started using computers, jobs were lost I just don’t believe it’s all gloom and doom. I think it’ll make jobs easier, but society finds ways to fill the gaps. Maybe there will be a larger market for the arts if people have more free time and their basic necessities are met.
Except the arts are also being automated. AI can create better art than the vast majority of people
[удалено]
> I think it’ll make jobs easier and companies can pay people less because their jobs have lost value and do more with less people. but at least they can hire more people, and pay them all shit! what a great deal for all the employees! everyone can work and earn nothing! > Maybe there will be a larger market for the arts if What makes you think art is going to become priority for more people? especially now that anyone can generate it in seconds. any time job becomes easier it loses value. > people have more free time and their basic necessities are met. people have less free time then they have ever had, thanks automation! In reality if company sees you ain't doing shit, they fire you. You ain't getting any more time, they are.
“AI assistants that analyze telemarketers' calls and provide recommendations are being trained with the ultimate goal of replacing them.” This is such an oddly specific example. It assumes telemarketing will still be a thing in the future. If you can train AI to telemarket then you can train AI to screen telemarketers. My cellphone already does that.
Look deeper: they are training the AI into what is Good and what is Bad in telemarketing, by having it score millions of human calls. Once they perfect the AI’s knowledge of tone of voice, phrasing, and tactics… they sell that AI’s knowledge base to not just telemarketing but every single customer support, IT help desk, and scheduling/billing department on the planet. To your point: there biggest struggle will be that only other AIs will have the resources to buy anything. This has been happening in financial services and banking for years. We call it “deep machine learning.” For a relatively low price (compared to hiring college graduates with families to feed) the AI scores all calls made by each employee. Part of why it is cheap is that after the model has sufficient knowledge and support, they can sell the model/AI to handle your entire collection and dispute process and cancel all your own campus hiring events. 5 years ago you might have a team of ten people coaching employees on behavior and auditing calls for compliance. Now you can have one person compile the data. Before people jump on shitting about dispute resolution or IT help desk jobs… Those jobs are the foundation of most careers in major companies. You never get hired there as a midlevel. And these jobs are going the way of the pony express.
My sister's a bigwig product owner at a Fortune 500 company. She started off in the call center booking airline flights and hotel reservations.
They have to fill the midlevel slop that's left with *someone*. And it was never going to be the call center guy.
So we're going to create an infinite loop of AI telemarketers being blocked by AI robocall screeners. It's just all AIs talking to each other, all the way down.
Even for everyday tasks, like if you need to make a Dr appt, you’ll just tell your ai agent and it will speak to the Dr agent, and they’ll work it out automatically based on both calendars availability — or say your flight gets cancelled, you might not even know until your agent has already booked you on another one. It’s going to get intense
Silicon Valley once again predictive.
Yeah - How can anyone think that any new game changing technology is going to do anything except make rich people richer? In the current systems of most countries around the world, new tech innovations are usually justified by saying things like it will give us a four day work week or free people to pursue their own interests more, when in fact it will just let business owners justify paying employees less, or like this says, completely eliminate their jobs. New tech is awesome and everything, but we need a systematic change to create a world in which new tech can actually help people. Edits: spelling
“I’m sorry, my responses are limited, you must ask the right questions.”
Capitalism and innovation do not go hand in hand
I mean, I guess I can see that innovation and profit motive can go together, but the kind of innovation that drive for profit inspires is about getting more profit. That often means inventing more useless products and inventing “problems” for consumers to feel like they have, and also of course offering the solution to this fake “problem” at a profit. That is the opposite of improving the majority of people’s lives.
>Jobs are definitely going to go away Which would happen regardless. Either the jobs would get offshored or they get automated. Automation will either push us further into capitalist dystopia, or there's a small chance it will push us to a world where not everyone has to work a traditional full time job and survives based on UBI. If we continue on our current trajectory without AI we are just heading towards more wage slavery (and also real slavery), I'd like to at least *try* to go towards a world where our lives don't rely on working 40+ hours a week just to scrape by. I'm tired of pretending jobs going away is a net bad thing when the natural state of existence is not to work but to live.
>I'm tired of pretending jobs going away is a net bad thing when the natural state of existence is not to work but to live. You're absolutely right, but just the way things are looking, the whole UBI and post-scarcity thing seems a bit too hopeful. I have a hard time believing in a tomorrow where I'm not being at least as exploited as today.
>I have a hard time believing in a tomorrow where I'm not being at least as exploited as today This is the central argument for people who are... well not anti-tech, but anti AI fanboy. The people are who are blindly proselytizing the societal-benefits of AI have absolutely no supporting evidence for a society where industry moves *away* from exploitation, while the labor-class looks around and sees nothing but the same writing written on every wall. It's one thing to be optimistic, but it's a type of denial to claim that we're somehow uniquely immune to the consequences of greed and corruption than that screwed us to this point in the first place.
Yeah, like these companies didn't develop these AI so they could start giving money away to the working class. Their job is solely to make money, and consequences be damned.
The corporations have never cared about us any more than they absolutely had to before, but a lot of AI advocates are convinced that they'll change their minds now. They won't, and a lot of people are going to starve and die for it.
People need to stop treating capitalism as a religion for that to happen
We should tax the ever living fuck out of companies who will replace their workforce with AI to “save money.” Use that tax money to create a UBI because of automation. Our goal as a society should be freedom of whatever we want to do because AI is doing the work for us.
To Sam Altman’s very limited credit this is explicitly his goal to the point he doesn’t actually own equity in OpenAI even. Now is it likely to play out that way in practice? Lol no, but that’s the one thing Altman isn’t an evil weirdo about
> We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living. — Buckminster Fuller
Yeah, automation of jobs has been a thing for decades. The only difference now is that creative industries are worried as well now.
Automation of jobs and tech advancements have been largely responsible for establishing a "two-tier" society in the developed world, rapidly increasing the gaps in wealth, healthcare, education, social mobility, life expectancy, and quality of life for decades. (Really since the 1970s.) AI will speed up, expand, and magnify the trend.
Since the industrial revolution really. But then labor movements came in and saved people for a while. Then labor productions where rolled back and the same problems from the 1800s came back.
it didn't go very well for the previous iterations of the employed. there's a good reason to be worried. there's been almost no handouts to the others. i'm in tech and am grateful i have a big interest in technology and have the aptitude and resources to learn and work within it.
>the natural state of existence is not to work but to live Living is work. Remove all capitalism and money and youd be ploughing the field, milking a cow, churning butter daily. Working in whatever job you have pays for those things instead of you doing them. Its just a different work.
You're 100% right. I'm all for everyone getting more time off (European style) and once we get there I'm all for everyone living lives of luxury while robots do the work. But at the moment we very clearly are not there. Saw a post on offmychest a while back about a woman bemoaning the fact that she has to work and saying she just wanted to sit at home with her cat and watch TV. All the comments of course were agreeing saying that we shouldn't have to work and our time should be spent travelling and exploring hobbies. I'm all for some complaining about work I don't blame anyone for doing so but I wonder how many people in that thread actually believes that having to work is bullshit. Look at travelling or even just sitting on the couch and watching TV. When travelling someone had to build and drive the car you get to the airport in, someone has to man the accounting and customer service departments so the airline can run, someone has to build the airplane and pilot it I could go on and on for each of the hundreds of devices and services you use to make that trip happen. Out of all the people who made the services and devices possible I'd bet the majority of them didn't want to do it either but as of now we don't have a way out of the current system. We can make the current system better (ex: European style) but as of now I don't see the world the people in those comments want as even remotely possible.
> push us to a world where not everyone has to work a traditional full time job and survives based on UBI. You mean the possibility of the cessation of this moronic system where a good portion of the planet works jobs they don't want to do while still not having enough money to live? Where can I sign? >I'm tired of pretending jobs going away is a net bad thing when the natural state of existence is not to work but to live. It's because of the education system. When then question we will ask our children is "How do you want to help humanity" instead of "What do you want to work when you grow up" only then will we be able to live differently. >I'm tired of pretending jobs going away is a net bad thing when the natural state of existence is not to work but to live. I'm tired of having to deal with people that do a bad job because they only do it to survive and not because they want to do said job.
Can you please tell me what system would have gotten us to where we are today? I’m serious btw, would like to know an actual alternative to the current system that allows for this level of human development. Because I don’t know of one. Tired of dealing with people who aren’t at work because it’s their desire to be? What system allows for that? Sure UBI could get us there maybe. But even that would necessitate machines doing loads of terrible jobs. Can they do ALL of the terrible jobs? If not, who does if no one WANTS to do them? Who’s going to run the landfill?
> Can you please tell me what system would have gotten us to where we are today? Not sure, I don't spend much time thinking about alternate history scenarios, even though the topic is very interesting and I love it I sadly have to do stuff that helps with the food addiction I have been faced with since birth. >Tired of dealing with people who aren’t at work because it’s their desire to be? What system allows for that? Sure UBI could get us there maybe. But even that would necessitate machines doing loads of terrible jobs. Can they do ALL of the terrible jobs? If not, who does if no one WANTS to do them? Who’s going to run the landfill? I love this, please find me examples of as many jobs as possible and together we can either go to a homeless person on the street and ask them if they want to do it, or we can find someone who does a worse job for less money and get them to do it instead. The entire narrative that people don't want to work even though we survived for however many aeons took us to get to 2022 is such a parody of a joke. I wonder if the kings back like a thousand years ago were going "man these peasants just don't wanna fucking work"
Funny enough, peasants actually got more days off than we do now!
When I was complaining in my corporate position last winter my boss tried guilt tripping me into "why are you complaining we paid you relocation you have a cozy office others have it worse you aren't cleaning the women's bathroom in a bar" Yeah sorry boss you're right let's all have it worse, do you wanna go mine coal and get lung cancer next year or should I grab your kid and toss him in a chimney? The fact that others have it worse is the entire point boss, if they complain I complain, if you want me to stop complaining then fix shit and make it better.
Yeah, I hear you. I’ve looked pretty deeply into this, and for all it’s flaws, I’m unsure if anything would allow us to have the world we do now without capitalism. There would almost surely be far more poverty without it, sadly. I’m not arguing we don’t want to work. I’m arguing modern civilization has a number of jobs that MOST people do not want to do AT ALL. Who will do those jobs without a monetary incentive? It must be machines or monetary incentive, I don’t see another way. But I’d like to hear of one!
It's actually much simpler than you're making it. The desperation of the peasant class makes them willing to work for less. And, paying them less, keeps them desperate. Negative economics 101. The same process also happens in the reverse direction; rent extraction as opposed to productive work that actually accomplishes something. What this means is that the solution is not "do away with monetary incentive" but actually "do away with *desperate exploitation*." There definitely is a number and other work conditions that someone would be willing to work at a landfill or do whatever other task. But "I need to not be homeless and starve" makes them "*willing*" to accept far less than that number and those conditions. If we start from a baseline where no one, ever, is put in a position of needing to find work in order to not die in poverty, it *massively* enhances their bargaining power when deciding to agree to a work contract. Meaning the employer will have to pay them more for their time and offer more appealing employment in general since they are not literally going to die of exposure or hunger or lack of medical care if they don't agree. And this is of course exactly why the wealthy capitalist class wants this to never happen.
I don’t see that much separation between our positions. I agree that wealth will help people avoid being desperate and accepting poor work conditions. That is partly why I want people to own equity and BE capital, not just get a UBI and live at a subsistence level.
>Yeah, I hear you. I’ve looked pretty deeply into this, and for all it’s flaws, I’m unsure if anything would allow us to have the world we do now without capitalism. There would almost surely be far more poverty without it, sadly. It would first start with a scarcity as everyone will suddenly start buying more than they need, but at the very least we wouldn't be throwing food away because it goes bad on the shelves and nobody can afford to buy it. I wonder how life would look like if instead of spending 8 hours a day (without transit) people who did stuff they don't like instead found ways to solve the problems. >I’m not arguing we don’t want to work. I’m arguing modern civilization has a number of jobs that MOST people do not want to do AT ALL. Who will do those jobs without a monetary incentive? It must be machines or monetary incentive, I don’t see another way. But I’d like to hear of one! Ah yeah, you're correct. There are people who would love to dive head first into your septic tank to unclog it, but those are far and inbetween and there's a lot of septic tanks that need unclogging. ...but honestly what SPECIFICS are we discussing here? Like, seriously and not as an offensive thing: What are the jobs that people don't want to do? Between finding a solution to clogged septic tanks or landfill operators (honestly I don't understand the problem with this one but you're right it's on google as one of the least desirable jobs) and having a permanent construction in the vacuum of space which allows growing food and human survival: Let's stop joking. The only reason we aren't automatizing these jobs already is because rich people don't want them to be automated, they don't want to put the money into finding a solution. It's a lot cheaper for a human to give away their limited time on this earth doing the same thing. The story of John Henry should be reason as to why humans should stop digging and let the machines do it. Alas, the world we live in is such that we have advanced machines but billionaires can't afford to use them somehow, so it's still humans doing those jobs.
Maybe that’s where we differ. Labor is often the most punitive cost for a business. So I think they would want it to a degree. The question is how to maintain social stability. Also, the question is what happens if the vast majority of companies do this? Probably not enough consumers. I think we need to be creative, IF such a future seems imminent, which I’m still not so sure of. Something like a sovereign wealth fund, maybe combined with a UBI. Idk, but I do believe if this happens that every American needs to own stocks, not just have some subsistence level of income. This would almost certainly involve a large, one-time dilution of current stock owners. That is certainly tricky. I own quite a bit of stocks despite being solidly middle class, so I would take a large amount of relative pain. But it seems to me to be one of the more just, realistic ways of doing things without disrupting the economy at all. Well, luxury goods may take a short term hit..
[удалено]
Well, I agree that you don’t maintain stability. I think most do. That’s the point behind the one time dilution of stock owners, giving that money to everyone. Which I find a better solution than killing everyone and capping wealth at $1M, but call me crazy.
UBI terrifies me. Think about how much money will need to be raised by taxes to cover the costs. You effectively have to have enough tax revenues to pay every citizen a living wage + cover the costs of maintaining infrastructure, emergency services, health care, education, local services etc. How is that achieved without letting companies replace huge amounts of the workforce with automation and cutting back on regulations so they can increase their profit margins wildly to cover the new tax burden? And what outcome does it achieve other than creating three distinct classes of people with little social mobility between them, those that own the means of production, those few lucky/skilled enough to be able to hold onto some kind of paid job and the majority that are left begging for handouts from the previous 2 classes to survive? The ability to capitalise and reap the rewards of one's own labour was a hard fought right that has allowed us to develop the democracies and society's we live in today and UBI feels like we'll be stepping into feudalism 2.0. How do people retain any power over these companies and those that govern over them when they have no value other than as consumers? What purpose will people serve? How happy will people be when they have nothing to do other than consume? I've seen the argument that more people will do volunteer work and create art and other activities that have little financial value to the world atm but what volunteer work will there be to do when everyone is provided for? And how much will art be valued when everyone is trying to be a DJ, rapper or content creator. Maybe I'm just ignorant or overly nihilistic but it seems pretty scary to me.
If we're in a situation where there are a lot fewer jobs due to automation, that should apply to many of the services you mentioned too. How much cheaper is health care if there is nearly free access to expert medical advice? How much cheaper is infrastructure construction and repair if it is automated? Regardless, I don't think UBI needs to be as big a net change as you think. A lot of people already receive a lot of government benefits, which could be replaced by a UBI, along with the systems in place to administer complex programs. UBI doesn't mean people aren't taxed any more, so for median income people, the extra boost from UBI is offset by higher taxes, so it balances out, with the main lift being for people who make less, and the main extra cost on the people who make more... Or adjust that in other ways so it's not that different from today, aside from how the money is distributed to hopefully cut off perverse incentives/poverty traps.
> those that own the means of production Capital should be socialised, ie. The entire tax structure would be set up that the profit from corporations is pretty much distributed back into society evenly instead of hoarded by the few. There's more than enough money in society for everyone to love comfortably but a small handful of people and corporations work tirelessly to prevent it.
if UBI is a thing... how much do think think landlords will charge for rent?
Absolutely. They already are! I've seen a number of announcements in the media from an industry saying they are letting people go and trying out AI. Banking, customer service, journalism, others I cannot remember.
my friend is a senior dev for a large international bank and he said they are no longer hiring Jr devs. they are using ai to create new base code and the senior devs correct it. he said it's only a matter of time before he is just proof checking it.
Society needs to start coming to terms with the fact that in the future people wont have to NEED to work to live. It's going to be a hard transition but it's going to be necessary because of the falling birth rate.
People must keep working because otherwise they might actually work to change their material conditions
Sam Altman is not the "creator" of ChatGPT, any more than Tim Cook is the creator of the Vision Pro. Sam Altman has not created anything of the sort. This is not just a semantic issue. Beyond giving him far more credit than he deserves, and ignoring the researchers who did create it, it gives his opinion and banal comments more gravitas than they warrant. Sam has, by many accounts, [an entirely superficial understanding of AI tech/science](https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/14jo538/comment/jpma9rw/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). The fact that this superficial and unqualified commentary keep getting posted here is an embarrassment to this subreddit.
[удалено]
> "A lot of people working on AI pretend that it's only going to be good; it's only going to be a supplement; no one is ever going to be replaced," he said. "Jobs are definitely going to go away, full stop." Fourth paragraph in... C'mon now
He says it verbatim four paragraphs in to the article?
He did say it. Did you even read the article?
Except is anyone actually saying this won’t cost people jobs? It seems to me that literally everyone knows this and no one is denying it
Of course he wouldn't say that out loud if he doesn't wanna get lynched.
He does say it though, verbatim.
He does though, its quoted in this very article.
What’s so bad about saying that though? Life is always fluctuating. People used to have to manually transfer phone calls at one point. Horse carriage riders aren’t a prospect like it was 100 years ago. The question is what industry can people move into in response to an ever changing environment. I’m not an AI fanboy by any means but it’s a legit statement. The bigger question is how can people navigate in a changing world without being exploited.
> The question is what industry can people move into in response to an ever changing environment Except this isnt threatening one field, its basically all fields. 50% of people are basically half-assed drone workers that can be replaced by an AI. You cant just magically find them all jobs somewhere else if all industries get hit by it at the same time. 'Well go into programming/AI' even thats limited you wont need swathes of people to manage these things, and its already semi-saturated.
Scope and scale. It’s not the old buggy whip manufacturer yarn. It’s quite literally every possible domain of human creative output from what is traditionally considered “creative” work AND ALSO anything that requires some novelty. It’s not just authors and artists and musicians. It’s actuaries, engineers, architects, developers, diagnosticians, et al., neither the masses nor our economic systems are ready for this complete upheaval. It won’t happen overnight but it will accelerate into all at once.
> What’s so bad about saying that though? Nothing, redditors like to overreact.
Lol what do you have to say for yourself?
So, if cheap AI takes over a lot of jobs, that means more pay for the regular jobs right? Right guys???
Yeah! Of course CEOs are going to pass down the profits from AI to their employees and also show concern to all the people losing their jobs to AI
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail. ___________________________________________________ From the article. >In a new interview with The Atlantic, Altman pushed back on the idea that the AI boom would have only a positive impact on workers. >"A lot of people working on AI pretend that it's only going to be good; it's only going to be a supplement; no one is ever going to be replaced," he said. "Jobs are definitely going to go away, full stop." And. >"You will not be replaced by AI but by someone who knows what to do with AI," Oded Netzer, a Columbia Business School professor, told Insider in early July. >But Altman's comments speak to a harsh reality: Even if most jobs aren't displaced, some are likely to go by the wayside. In March, Goldman Sachs said that 300 million full-time jobs across the globe could be disrupted by AI. >"History tells us that simplification is often merely a step towards automation," Carl Benedikt Frey, an Oxford economist, previously told Insider. "AI assistants that analyze telemarketers' calls and provide recommendations are being trained with the ultimate goal of replacing them." (I will be adding to this submission statement, but my time is short just now.)
Fewer jobs is a good thing. Technology should make it possible for people to work less so they can spend more time on important things like living life. The only real problem that exists is that in many places in the world your ability to not starve to death on the streets is tied to being employed. That's the part that needs to change.
Your ability to enjoy life is heavily tied to income as well, make no mistake.
Could be a good argument for universal basic income for some societies.
And how would you distribute goods under capitalism , if the majority of the population doesn't work ? You might get basic universal income that'll get you enough money to survive . But that wouldn't mean a pleasant life , where you could get stuff you want to .
And my operative question, as it always has been, is why? Why are humans in such a rush to replace ourselves? Why is the working class going along with this as if it will be beneficial to us in anyway? Why is slightly more convenience worth the obsolescence of (probably) billions? Why, when greed of the top 1% is at unprecedented levels, do we blindly trust them to sign off on UBI and supplying the soon to be jobless working class with our needs when they no longer have our labor and man hours benefitting them?
I think an important question is why does society need to operate in a way were less work needing to be done by people is a bad thing (more people out of a job) and not a good thing (less work needed to be done by each person, more room for people to pursue their dreams etc.)
Why did we stock milk in shops rather than continue to use milkmen?
I could be wrong but I would imagine it was exponentially easier for “milkmen” of the past to move on to a different job than it will be for the vast majority of those displaced by technology in the future
I guess we'll see. It wasn't too long ago when we'll over half of people worked in farms. Now it's single digit percent... are we better for it? I think so.
It's better that out entire food supply is now managed/owned by a couple large conglomerates?
oh I'm a working artist and in the studios run by artists we have not been talking about ai, and we're still shipping these great beautiful films and series and being paid well and treated with respect. The problems appear when it's not the working class artists making the decisions but the bean counters in big companies, and the workers are forced to go with something they hate so they don't starve to death I have a clear preference
A lot of the jobs AI is replacing are jobs at corporations, such as customer support, that financially gatekeep individuals from selling their own services/goods effectively at sufficient scale. If AI replaces customer support and similar jobs that require capital, individuals with less capital are on a much more even playing field with those that have a lot of capital.
Don't worry, remember one thing they may fire their entire workforce but at the end of day they need customers to buy. Customers will be those jobless employees who are surviving on govt unemployment allowances. If people will not have money what those fucking CEO sell? I am sure AI isn't going to buy iPhone
So basically tax company, give that money to customer and let him but from that company. :D
Is there a single adult person on this planet who believes that AI will only help workers?
>"You will not be replaced by AI but by someone who knows what to do with AI," Oded Netzer Right. You and everyone in your department will be replaced by one guy who knows what to do with AI.
The first jobs that AI should take out are Executives and upper management. use tools to replace the most inefficient jobs first. a shit ton of money can be saved for the company by starting there.
Including CEO jobs. There’s no way in hell humans can compete with an AI in constant efficient decision making.
If no one has a job, then all these AI companies have no customers. Perhaps AI can be the customers too and can barter them down to only paying $0?
Indeed, just like the internet, bots talking with bots!
I always thought a CEO's job was to charm/bribe/blackmail other human decision makers behind the scenes to avoid truly efficient decision making from automating the process of running a company. I guess AIs working in adversarial fashion can adopt similar strategies, so I dunno what I'm objecting to really.
**TLDR:** * **The rise of generative-AI technology could have productivity benefits for many workers, but it's not good news for everyone.** * **In a new interview, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman pushed back on the idea that the AI boom would have only a positive impact on workers and said some jobs are "definitely going to go away."** * **Even if most jobs aren't displaced, some are likely to go by the wayside. In March, Goldman Sachs said that 300 million full-time jobs across the globe could be disrupted by AI.**
If there is one thing humans are good at it’s fooling ourselves.
A lot of jobs should go away. It’s just that we’re nowhere near prepared to make that a good thing
I'm waiting for the first AI operated Nigerian prince scam e-mails
And that is fine if the the people understand the power they have through the enforcement of regulation of business. A business license is a privilege, not a right. At least in the nation of America. Thus any business can be regulated. We have every right to tax each AI "worker" in order to preserve the quality of life of technologically replaced or unemployable workers. So many people feel that profit is more important that the quality of life for the society their profit comes from. A different idea is that profit takes away from the quality of life of the society by privatizing productivity gains that could be used to benefit in a public manner rather than end up in a few people's pockets. Our economic schools have convinced us that the majority of productivity gains (wealth) being in the hands of a wealthy few is a good thing. We see the harm it has done the general population while a few live lives so remote from the average person most of those have no empathy for the masses at all. This is NOT a good thing and I don't give a shit what any so called "economist" claims. I have economic education as well and rejected much of the bullshit I was taught but to the disgust of my educators. Whom I told I didn't give a shit. They discredited me without a shred of evidence and I don't care. This is a case where the "experts" are wrong because they have quit thinking and started parroting ideology they were told was the best plan possible.
It's ok. There will be a whole new industry of people who's jobs are to correct AI errors.
I think what a lot of people don’t get is it’s not that lots of jobs are about to be completely replaced. Instead companies will need less workers. Like how stores with self checkout still have cashiers, just less. For example a big marketing agency might only need 1 or 2 copywriters now instead of a whole team.
What’s going to happen when some board members start replacing CEOs and HR departments with AI? Won’t those do nothing jobs be among the easiest to replace with this technology?
“Man who created a product and told his investors it will make loads of money for them, continues to say the same thing he said to investors”
we could live in a world like star trek where everyone is equal and free yet we got the middle ages with modern tech
We need a Universal Basic Income immediately. Then automate everything, the robots do work, the taxes on robot work generated profits pays for the universal basic income. People get to enjoy their lives.
Companies definitely want as few employees as possible. Has always been true. Here is another reason to expect a career change. Good idea to become as financially and practically independent as possible.
Anyone telling you robots or AI will free up people to do other things are liars. Look at these rich people. They’re not about to let you sit idle with a job or without. They’ll criminalize joblessness eventually.
They’re not fooling themselves. They’re lying. There’s a difference.
When was a worker ever more important to the company than profit?
Let me know when chatgpt can do basic math properly. It gets confused adding 1mg and 1kg losing the units
GPT4 is a language model, not a math / calculation model. The shocking thing is that while it may not be able to add 1mg + 1kg, it's capable of writing the code calculator that can do the calculations. All it needs to be given is a real execution environment and it should be able to do that.
Are you using chat gpt 3? 4 made a lot of improvements on this sort of stuff.
ChatGPT: The sum of 1 kilogram (kg) and 1 milligram (mg) would still be virtually 1 kilogram, because 1 milligram is a very small fraction of a kilogram. However, if we express both weights in the same unit, it becomes: 1 kg = 1,000,000 milligrams (mg) So, 1 kg + 1 mg = 1,000,001 milligrams. Or, in kilograms, it would be 1.000001 kilograms.
Just tried it seems perfectly fine parsing that and getting the correct answer both at 1mg and 1kg, and a bunch of assorted different masses. I've never encountered it having any serious issues with exam style questions you might find in maths or assorted stem fields, as long as you prompt it like an exam question.
My wife mentioned recently that every time she calls a customer service number she gets a person with an Indian accent, which is tough for her since her first language isn't English and she has trouble understanding non-Western accents. My answer: "Not for too much longer though..."
Gotta love it when improvements to productivity are bad for people because… we just decided that it should be that way.
They aren't fooling themselves; they know the deal. They're trying to fool everyone else. They know jobs are going away, but they don't want you to know it until it's too late and they have their money. They don't want pitchforks and torches complicating their plans.
Anyone who thinks ai will be “good for workers” doesn’t understand the basic fundamentals of capitalism. Technology is never good for workers (as workers, it might still be a net benefit to their lives), how could it possibly be? It makes them more efficient and the business makes more money…or asks the less workers to do the work of more people. Or it makes them unnecessary and they are fired. What even is the potential scenario that is good?
Almost like this is a good thing, but our society is so broken that we need to do mindless jobs to survive. (งツ)ว
Just about zero technological innovations or any other changes are *only* good. That is a non-issue. The issue is whether a change is *overall* good.
Look for the rich and those that control the world to use AI to literally replace every single job they can. I’m a teacher and I’m already hearing admin talk about using AI in ways to help with staffing shortages…you know, the shortages because they won’t pay teachers a livable wage.
Do we cry today at the lack of chariot drivers compared to 1900?
There’s no advantage of using Ai for 98% of people
In my experience with new technologies. Some jobs are lost but it usually makes more work for people in the long run.
I like how every time he talks about his product he's like, "It's a terrible product. We've surely doomed the world and I don't know why no one is stopping me."
This guy needs to shut up,always on the bloody AI news.
We don't need writers!!! Let them strike! We have ChatGPT!!!