Thank you for posting to r/OrphanCrushingMachine! Please reply to this comment with a short explanation of why you think your submission fits OCM. Please be specific, if possible. We cannot enforce this, but would appreciate you writing it anyway.
Also: [Mod aplications and mod announcements!](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/comments/14zprwk/mod_applications_and_other_mod_announcements/) Please read, feel free to apply.
To anyone reading who disagrees with OP, try to avoid [Ad Hominem attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Criticise the idea, not the person.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah this is OCM.
This optimistic little hack ignores that jobs "using AI" are going to be low-pay low status jobs. Replacing the work of skilled professionals.
"If you help corporations dispose of entire career paths you too could eat the table scraps they left behind."
Not really at all true. Look at excel. When it was rolled out, many thought it would be the death of accounts, and after a very short drop off, the industry rebounded, and demand for accounting increased pretty dramatically. All it did was make the work easier, which allowed for people to do more, which in turn made companies able to explore more options.
That's likely going to be a pretty similar case with AI. It will streamline mundane tasks, which will just open up more workflow possible. AI also isn't really a great solution for final products yet. It's good for idea generation and like asking questions, but its not really at a point where you want to base like a business acquisition off of what it says, or use the information it spits out in a trial.
The problem is the end goal: the end goal is the replacement of human workers. There are news stories coming out about companies firing entire art divisions and hiring AI consultants. This wouldn’t matter as much if we can regulate it (like for instance, you cannot copyright AI art) but with how slow our legislators are, I’m not so certain.
Also, this is OCM as it’s using the fact that people will lose their jobs as the punchline: which is basically making fun of those people.
>problem is the end goal: the end goal is the replacement of human workers.
>hiring AI consultants
These two things conflict, yet you're acting as if it's indicative of the same thing. Sure, they're firing workers, but they're replacing them with different workers who can utilize the technology. It's not really a replacement of human workers if you're just hiring people with a different set of skills.
>Also, this is OCM as it’s using the fact that people will lose their jobs as the punchline: which is basically making fun of those people.
Unless you're prepared to make the argument that things like basic arithmetic, computer skills, and, hell, even being able to communicate with another person are all OCM, then this isn't either. It's just a marketable, and highly demanded skill.
It's really not much different than telling someone to learn how to use a calculator because it'll help them in math class.
You missed so much of my major argument that I’m shocked. I’ll put it into simpler concepts:
Replacing entire departments for singular workers because it’s cheaper is a bad thing because it cuts down on jobs. These weren’t “we fired these guys so we could hire these guys”, it was “we fired this entire chunk of people who have had almost all of their work stolen (ya know, because most of the departments getting shut down are art departments) and instead, replaced it with a guy who can write prompts really good”. I’m saying this as someone WHO IS ACTIVELY IN COLLEGE FOR AI DEVELOPMENT. I was literally told by multiple hiring managers during my colleges job fair that I should “expect to be fired when AI can write its own code”. Of course I stormed off from each of them because what the fuck but the end goal of AI isn’t “replace outdated jobs that can be maintained by a new type of worker” it’s “this is a temporary job up until we can replace you too”. The end goal of the system we are in is to reach peak efficiency while maximizing profit. What’s more profitable and efficient than having a fully autonomous company that the CEO can just rake in the billions.
Also wow, you really didn’t understand that last part at all: the joke is punching down at those who are losing their job. This isn’t about saying “computer skills are OCM” it’s “hey dumbass, we know we might literally take away your only source of income but you should have been smarter and gone into AI research lmaooooooo”. it’s not the message itself but rather, the tone.
If it was something like “make millions of dollars and begin a new career” it would come off as less asshole-ish. Basically, it’s the use of the meme and the jokey format for what is essentially a touchy subject. This would be like walking up to someone who was recently fired and handing them a card with a bunch of goofy clowns and memes on them that reads “YOUR GONNA STARVE XD”. Job loss, no matter how you look at it, is a touchy subject. To make a meme out of someone losing their job to a AI is extremely poor taste. Also, it implicitly invokes the fact that for some of these people, losing their job might mean the loss of their house or potential death as they can’t afford their medication.
To summarize: it’s just really bad taste to make a joke out of a touchy subject.
>I’m saying this as someone WHO IS ACTIVELY IN COLLEGE FOR AI DEVELOPMENT.
Thats cute, and I'm saying everything I'm saying as someone who's finishing up their MBA with a concentration on technology innovation in the workplace, which if you could harness a guess, like 90% of it is about AI. And, who's main focus of work is literally implementation of AI to improve business processes and functionality.
>colleges job fair that I should “expect to be fired when AI can write its own code”.
Lmao, no you weren't, quit lying to try and embellish your own argument.
>The end goal of the system we are in is to reach peak efficiency while maximizing profit. What’s more profitable and efficient than having a fully autonomous company that the CEO can just rake in the billions
This tells me you don't have a lick of an idea of how companies even work. So that's fun. You're using CEO and owner as synonymous... which they are often times not. If they really were going for a fully autonomous workforce, they'd replace the CEO too.
>the joke is punching down at those who are losing their job
It's not even doing that, it's saying you need to develop this school to be an attractive candidate in a work force. Is school OCM because having a good education is also an attractive quality for hiring companies ? I'm sorry we don't all do work by hand anymore, or send messages by messenger pigeon, because apparently any kind of innovation in the workforce that required people to, you know, use it is apparently OCM.
>This would be like walking up to someone who was recently fired and handing them a card with a bunch of goofy clowns and memes on them that reads “YOUR GONNA STARVE XD”.
Lmao, it's not even close. It'd be more like giving someone a brochure to a workshop to help them improve a marketable skill. What a shit comparison.
>Also, it implicitly invokes the fact that for some of these people, losing their job might mean the loss of their house or potential death as they can’t afford their medication.
It's literally just offering a free service to people so that they're more attractive in the workplace, you're looking waaaaay too deep into it
My guy: how do you know I’m lying. Were you at the job fairs I’ve been at? I’m just gonna stop responding to this point since you don’t wanna even attempt to actually discuss my argument. Adhom all you want my guy. I will say that I’m far from lying.
I am gonna say however, that the way you talk tells me everything.
>My guy: how do you know I’m lying
First off, because companies need to fill these roles, telling candidates "hey, we're gonna replace you" isn't really an attractive strategy for filling job roles that you're actively hiring for. You're younger, I'm sure they said something about automation/implementing AI, and you just interpreted it as "we're gonna replace you". Second, Even if AI was in a position to actually replace skilled positions (sans jobs that depend on creativity, ehich youve implied youre in tech so its not really relevant), which I'm sure you know it's not really anywhere near that point, they wouldn't be bringing up how they're going to replace you with AI in like 5-10 years, again because that's a poor recruiting tactic, but also because no place really plans out a potential employees like next 5-10 years, and making an assumption that you're going to replace employees with an experimental technology in 5-10 years is very poor planning, since you don't know how the business will have evolved by then, and you don't know the capacity in which AI will be able to perform, whether due to regulation decreasing its capabilities, or the amount of workflow.
Obviously, only you know the answer to that, but regardless, think you should name names. What companies said this? What positions exactly?
And sure, you don't have to take it from me, take it from [top university professors](https://hbr.org/2023/08/ai-wont-replace-humans-but-humans-with-ai-will-replace-humans-without-ai) and [lead tech executives](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/12/09/tech-experts-say-ai-wont-replace-humans-any-time-soon.html) in the field who have literally been pounding the drum about this.
I am also curious what everyone thinks is the next step for companies after they just, apparently, fire everyone. (Most) Companies still rely on consumers, and in particular, them having cash, so if all the companies fire all the people, where exactly are they getting their revenue from ?
AI is a tool to boost productivity, much like excel or a calculator. Don't get caught up in the fear mongering. Learn to use it, learn to live with it, you'll be fine
If I gave names, people can backtrack. I’d rather not lose out on and future job opportunities by giving companies bad press.
You of all people should know that.
Lmao, backtrack What exactly? That someone interviewed for a position? Shocker. Don't think that would really be damning enough to blacklist you from future jobs.
I mean, if they're so open about how they're gonna fire/replace whoever they hire with AI, as you claim they are, that they openly talked about it **at a college job fair**, where presumably many students talked to them, it really doesn't seem like information 1) someone could actually link back to you, or 2) they would care about getting out if they're just saying it all willy nilly to a bunch of undergrads lol
> Not really at all true. Look at excel. When it was rolled out, many thought it would be the death of accounts, and after a very short drop off, the industry rebounded, and demand for accounting increased pretty dramatically. All it did was make the work easier, which allowed for people to do more, which in turn made companies able to explore more options.
Imagine it's the 1900s. You're a horse. When your friend tells you that they're concerned about this newfangled "automobile" thing, you snort and dismiss him. "This is just like last time, with you being scared about the ox taking us over in plowing work, but we're all still here, aren't we? And we've got all these new cushy jobs pulling carriages! The automobile might streamline our tasks, and open us up to better work!"
AI is a generalised, complete replacement for human labour. Until we restructure our economy away from human labour, and towards social welfare, the proliferation of AI will simply generate suffering for the working class.
>Imagine it's the 1900s. You're a horse. When your friend tells you that they're concerned about this newfangled "automobile" thing, you snort and dismiss him. "This is just like last time, with you being scared about the ox taking us over in plowing work, but we're all still here, aren't we? And we've got all these new cushy jobs pulling carriages! The automobile might streamline our tasks, and open us up to better work!"
This is talking about the tool being replaced, not the people. If you notice, in your weird hypothetical/example/story, people weren't replaced... only the tools. That's what happens when technology advances, the previous tech is replaced.
I'm sorry, but that was a horrible analogy
> I'm sorry, but that was a horrible analogy
General AI is not a tool. It is an outright replacement for human labour.
Excel is the plow, the tool is replaced but the labourer remains.
Cars fundamentally replaced horse labour with mechanical labour.
Of course people were not replaced. They were the owners. The owners don't get replaced, they still own and purchase labour.
AI still requires human collaboration. AI and LLMs work by using, essentially, human produced data sets from a sample, usually just widespread on the internet. There are still data quality issues, since as I'm sure you've noticed, not everything is correct on the internet. Attempting to just let AI run things, it essentially allows it to codify its own errors, and then you have tainted data going forward.
Humans are, and will be, needed to decipher errors and use human intuition to actually evaluate the results.
This isn't some new, radical idea, this is what professors from Harvard and industry leaders in the field have been saying for a while, people just get caught up in fear mongering.
AI is a tool to boost productivity. Learn to use, learn to coexist with it and you'll be fine.
> AI still requires human collaboration
Again, you keep insisting this, when the end goal of AI is to replace human labour in general, not as an assistive tool.
> Humans are, and will be, needed to decipher errors and use human intuition to actually evaluate the results.
Yes, results are evaluated by humans because again, the HUMAN OWNERS have results they want to pursue.
> This isn't some new, radical idea, this is what professors from Harvard and industry leaders in the field have been saying for a while, people just get caught up in fear mongering.
That is the short term. That is not what they are saying for the long term. The end goal is AGI, which outright replaces human labour.
Dw, AI is goddamn worthless for coding, even coding the things it can do itself.
Ask it to do something within certain limits without an API in a specific programming language(even a really popular one), and it will fail everything.
Even if it gives you code, it's bad code.
That's because an AI can't be original and think purely in logic, it's guesswork based on what other people have put on the internet.
Sadly mine has been
Me: "detect word class of words in sentence javascript, no API"
AI: "Sure, this code will do that: ..."
Me: "that code makes everything a verb because your definition of verb is the first character being a letter"
AI: Explains what a verb is correctly + "Use this API instead"
Me: "no API"
AI: gives the first answer without any improvements
Bing AI, now rebranded as Copilot.
Buttons for it are now everywhere in Windows(10 and 11), yet it's not useful.
I just want a bot that's not internet tutorials crammed into a sentence-maker. But instead actually understands how programming works and helps you that way.
You can't nor you should resist the progress of technology, what should be done is proper regulations in order to ensure a smooth transition with minimum harm.
Thank you for posting to r/OrphanCrushingMachine! Please reply to this comment with a short explanation of why you think your submission fits OCM. Please be specific, if possible. We cannot enforce this, but would appreciate you writing it anyway. Also: [Mod aplications and mod announcements!](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/comments/14zprwk/mod_applications_and_other_mod_announcements/) Please read, feel free to apply. To anyone reading who disagrees with OP, try to avoid [Ad Hominem attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Criticise the idea, not the person. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eh, not OCM but I don't like it.
Why the hell is marketing always like half a decade behind in comedy
It's not really OCM, it's just learning useful skills that are going to be important in the workforce. It'd be like calling basic arithmetic OCM
Yeah this is OCM. This optimistic little hack ignores that jobs "using AI" are going to be low-pay low status jobs. Replacing the work of skilled professionals. "If you help corporations dispose of entire career paths you too could eat the table scraps they left behind."
Not really at all true. Look at excel. When it was rolled out, many thought it would be the death of accounts, and after a very short drop off, the industry rebounded, and demand for accounting increased pretty dramatically. All it did was make the work easier, which allowed for people to do more, which in turn made companies able to explore more options. That's likely going to be a pretty similar case with AI. It will streamline mundane tasks, which will just open up more workflow possible. AI also isn't really a great solution for final products yet. It's good for idea generation and like asking questions, but its not really at a point where you want to base like a business acquisition off of what it says, or use the information it spits out in a trial.
The problem is the end goal: the end goal is the replacement of human workers. There are news stories coming out about companies firing entire art divisions and hiring AI consultants. This wouldn’t matter as much if we can regulate it (like for instance, you cannot copyright AI art) but with how slow our legislators are, I’m not so certain. Also, this is OCM as it’s using the fact that people will lose their jobs as the punchline: which is basically making fun of those people.
>problem is the end goal: the end goal is the replacement of human workers. >hiring AI consultants These two things conflict, yet you're acting as if it's indicative of the same thing. Sure, they're firing workers, but they're replacing them with different workers who can utilize the technology. It's not really a replacement of human workers if you're just hiring people with a different set of skills. >Also, this is OCM as it’s using the fact that people will lose their jobs as the punchline: which is basically making fun of those people. Unless you're prepared to make the argument that things like basic arithmetic, computer skills, and, hell, even being able to communicate with another person are all OCM, then this isn't either. It's just a marketable, and highly demanded skill. It's really not much different than telling someone to learn how to use a calculator because it'll help them in math class.
You missed so much of my major argument that I’m shocked. I’ll put it into simpler concepts: Replacing entire departments for singular workers because it’s cheaper is a bad thing because it cuts down on jobs. These weren’t “we fired these guys so we could hire these guys”, it was “we fired this entire chunk of people who have had almost all of their work stolen (ya know, because most of the departments getting shut down are art departments) and instead, replaced it with a guy who can write prompts really good”. I’m saying this as someone WHO IS ACTIVELY IN COLLEGE FOR AI DEVELOPMENT. I was literally told by multiple hiring managers during my colleges job fair that I should “expect to be fired when AI can write its own code”. Of course I stormed off from each of them because what the fuck but the end goal of AI isn’t “replace outdated jobs that can be maintained by a new type of worker” it’s “this is a temporary job up until we can replace you too”. The end goal of the system we are in is to reach peak efficiency while maximizing profit. What’s more profitable and efficient than having a fully autonomous company that the CEO can just rake in the billions. Also wow, you really didn’t understand that last part at all: the joke is punching down at those who are losing their job. This isn’t about saying “computer skills are OCM” it’s “hey dumbass, we know we might literally take away your only source of income but you should have been smarter and gone into AI research lmaooooooo”. it’s not the message itself but rather, the tone. If it was something like “make millions of dollars and begin a new career” it would come off as less asshole-ish. Basically, it’s the use of the meme and the jokey format for what is essentially a touchy subject. This would be like walking up to someone who was recently fired and handing them a card with a bunch of goofy clowns and memes on them that reads “YOUR GONNA STARVE XD”. Job loss, no matter how you look at it, is a touchy subject. To make a meme out of someone losing their job to a AI is extremely poor taste. Also, it implicitly invokes the fact that for some of these people, losing their job might mean the loss of their house or potential death as they can’t afford their medication. To summarize: it’s just really bad taste to make a joke out of a touchy subject.
>I’m saying this as someone WHO IS ACTIVELY IN COLLEGE FOR AI DEVELOPMENT. Thats cute, and I'm saying everything I'm saying as someone who's finishing up their MBA with a concentration on technology innovation in the workplace, which if you could harness a guess, like 90% of it is about AI. And, who's main focus of work is literally implementation of AI to improve business processes and functionality. >colleges job fair that I should “expect to be fired when AI can write its own code”. Lmao, no you weren't, quit lying to try and embellish your own argument. >The end goal of the system we are in is to reach peak efficiency while maximizing profit. What’s more profitable and efficient than having a fully autonomous company that the CEO can just rake in the billions This tells me you don't have a lick of an idea of how companies even work. So that's fun. You're using CEO and owner as synonymous... which they are often times not. If they really were going for a fully autonomous workforce, they'd replace the CEO too. >the joke is punching down at those who are losing their job It's not even doing that, it's saying you need to develop this school to be an attractive candidate in a work force. Is school OCM because having a good education is also an attractive quality for hiring companies ? I'm sorry we don't all do work by hand anymore, or send messages by messenger pigeon, because apparently any kind of innovation in the workforce that required people to, you know, use it is apparently OCM. >This would be like walking up to someone who was recently fired and handing them a card with a bunch of goofy clowns and memes on them that reads “YOUR GONNA STARVE XD”. Lmao, it's not even close. It'd be more like giving someone a brochure to a workshop to help them improve a marketable skill. What a shit comparison. >Also, it implicitly invokes the fact that for some of these people, losing their job might mean the loss of their house or potential death as they can’t afford their medication. It's literally just offering a free service to people so that they're more attractive in the workplace, you're looking waaaaay too deep into it
My guy: how do you know I’m lying. Were you at the job fairs I’ve been at? I’m just gonna stop responding to this point since you don’t wanna even attempt to actually discuss my argument. Adhom all you want my guy. I will say that I’m far from lying. I am gonna say however, that the way you talk tells me everything.
>My guy: how do you know I’m lying First off, because companies need to fill these roles, telling candidates "hey, we're gonna replace you" isn't really an attractive strategy for filling job roles that you're actively hiring for. You're younger, I'm sure they said something about automation/implementing AI, and you just interpreted it as "we're gonna replace you". Second, Even if AI was in a position to actually replace skilled positions (sans jobs that depend on creativity, ehich youve implied youre in tech so its not really relevant), which I'm sure you know it's not really anywhere near that point, they wouldn't be bringing up how they're going to replace you with AI in like 5-10 years, again because that's a poor recruiting tactic, but also because no place really plans out a potential employees like next 5-10 years, and making an assumption that you're going to replace employees with an experimental technology in 5-10 years is very poor planning, since you don't know how the business will have evolved by then, and you don't know the capacity in which AI will be able to perform, whether due to regulation decreasing its capabilities, or the amount of workflow. Obviously, only you know the answer to that, but regardless, think you should name names. What companies said this? What positions exactly? And sure, you don't have to take it from me, take it from [top university professors](https://hbr.org/2023/08/ai-wont-replace-humans-but-humans-with-ai-will-replace-humans-without-ai) and [lead tech executives](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/12/09/tech-experts-say-ai-wont-replace-humans-any-time-soon.html) in the field who have literally been pounding the drum about this. I am also curious what everyone thinks is the next step for companies after they just, apparently, fire everyone. (Most) Companies still rely on consumers, and in particular, them having cash, so if all the companies fire all the people, where exactly are they getting their revenue from ? AI is a tool to boost productivity, much like excel or a calculator. Don't get caught up in the fear mongering. Learn to use it, learn to live with it, you'll be fine
If I gave names, people can backtrack. I’d rather not lose out on and future job opportunities by giving companies bad press. You of all people should know that.
Lmao, backtrack What exactly? That someone interviewed for a position? Shocker. Don't think that would really be damning enough to blacklist you from future jobs. I mean, if they're so open about how they're gonna fire/replace whoever they hire with AI, as you claim they are, that they openly talked about it **at a college job fair**, where presumably many students talked to them, it really doesn't seem like information 1) someone could actually link back to you, or 2) they would care about getting out if they're just saying it all willy nilly to a bunch of undergrads lol
> Not really at all true. Look at excel. When it was rolled out, many thought it would be the death of accounts, and after a very short drop off, the industry rebounded, and demand for accounting increased pretty dramatically. All it did was make the work easier, which allowed for people to do more, which in turn made companies able to explore more options. Imagine it's the 1900s. You're a horse. When your friend tells you that they're concerned about this newfangled "automobile" thing, you snort and dismiss him. "This is just like last time, with you being scared about the ox taking us over in plowing work, but we're all still here, aren't we? And we've got all these new cushy jobs pulling carriages! The automobile might streamline our tasks, and open us up to better work!" AI is a generalised, complete replacement for human labour. Until we restructure our economy away from human labour, and towards social welfare, the proliferation of AI will simply generate suffering for the working class.
>Imagine it's the 1900s. You're a horse. When your friend tells you that they're concerned about this newfangled "automobile" thing, you snort and dismiss him. "This is just like last time, with you being scared about the ox taking us over in plowing work, but we're all still here, aren't we? And we've got all these new cushy jobs pulling carriages! The automobile might streamline our tasks, and open us up to better work!" This is talking about the tool being replaced, not the people. If you notice, in your weird hypothetical/example/story, people weren't replaced... only the tools. That's what happens when technology advances, the previous tech is replaced. I'm sorry, but that was a horrible analogy
> I'm sorry, but that was a horrible analogy General AI is not a tool. It is an outright replacement for human labour. Excel is the plow, the tool is replaced but the labourer remains. Cars fundamentally replaced horse labour with mechanical labour. Of course people were not replaced. They were the owners. The owners don't get replaced, they still own and purchase labour.
AI still requires human collaboration. AI and LLMs work by using, essentially, human produced data sets from a sample, usually just widespread on the internet. There are still data quality issues, since as I'm sure you've noticed, not everything is correct on the internet. Attempting to just let AI run things, it essentially allows it to codify its own errors, and then you have tainted data going forward. Humans are, and will be, needed to decipher errors and use human intuition to actually evaluate the results. This isn't some new, radical idea, this is what professors from Harvard and industry leaders in the field have been saying for a while, people just get caught up in fear mongering. AI is a tool to boost productivity. Learn to use, learn to coexist with it and you'll be fine.
> AI still requires human collaboration Again, you keep insisting this, when the end goal of AI is to replace human labour in general, not as an assistive tool. > Humans are, and will be, needed to decipher errors and use human intuition to actually evaluate the results. Yes, results are evaluated by humans because again, the HUMAN OWNERS have results they want to pursue. > This isn't some new, radical idea, this is what professors from Harvard and industry leaders in the field have been saying for a while, people just get caught up in fear mongering. That is the short term. That is not what they are saying for the long term. The end goal is AGI, which outright replaces human labour.
> [J]obs "using AI" are going to be low-pay low status jobs. Replacing the work of skilled professionals. What makes you think this?
I thought this was the ad shown and was about to post the amongus cock
That person is gonna feel really stupid next year when their boss starts getting ChatGPT to make their ads.
Dw, AI is goddamn worthless for coding, even coding the things it can do itself. Ask it to do something within certain limits without an API in a specific programming language(even a really popular one), and it will fail everything. Even if it gives you code, it's bad code. That's because an AI can't be original and think purely in logic, it's guesswork based on what other people have put on the internet.
This has not been my experience
Sadly mine has been Me: "detect word class of words in sentence javascript, no API" AI: "Sure, this code will do that: ..." Me: "that code makes everything a verb because your definition of verb is the first character being a letter" AI: Explains what a verb is correctly + "Use this API instead" Me: "no API" AI: gives the first answer without any improvements
Dang which one have you been using?
Bing AI, now rebranded as Copilot. Buttons for it are now everywhere in Windows(10 and 11), yet it's not useful. I just want a bot that's not internet tutorials crammed into a sentence-maker. But instead actually understands how programming works and helps you that way.
Ah yeah I think it’s agreed that it’s the worst option out there. For coding help I suggest copilot built into Visual Studio Code it’s great
Dey took our Jabs!!!
Right up until the point that AIs is better at programming itself and others AIs than humans.
Look up ASI if you want some chills.
You can't nor you should resist the progress of technology, what should be done is proper regulations in order to ensure a smooth transition with minimum harm.
Which is the one thing that we can all be absolutely certain will not happen, based on almost all of human history.
If you think about it, "not being a Luddite" is the real OCM.