Still unsure what to think after reading this. Wasn't exactly a clear cut good vs. evil checklist. I'm still unsure why we need this AI other than to put computer programmers, journalists, doctors, teachers, retail employees, auto workers, etc etc etc etc out of work. Perhaps I don't understand economics very well, because I always under…
Still unsure what to think after reading this. Wasn't exactly a clear cut good vs. evil checklist. I'm still unsure why we need this AI other than to put computer programmers, journalists, doctors, teachers, retail employees, auto workers, etc etc etc etc out of work. Perhaps I don't understand economics very well, because I always understood in order to have consumers you have to have people earning money. As in employed. Therefore, shouldn't we be doing our best to expand the economy not put entire industries out of work?
I have no idea how to prepare my children, 3 and 6, to think about a future career. What will be viable in 15-20 years? Maybe this is where that basic universal income comes into play? Or, the Matrix?
Can someone please get Miles Dyson on the phone?!??? We're going to need help getting into the lab!
I have always wondered about UBI in this situation. If everything were to be automated, only a handful of people would need to work. The rest of us would get UBI, which we would just give to the few companies that control the automation. The government would tax that company and then give that tax money back to us? Sounds super fulfilling.
The problem with this model is companies seemingly fail to grasp there is no viable business without someone willing and ABLE to pay for the good or service. AI is replacing the employee and in turn destroying the CONSUMER!
Yup...that is what I never understood. Up until this point, technology has largely replaced lower skilled labor. AI is going to replace educated labor too. That shrinking number of jobs from both ends is going to take a toll, somewhere.
AI doesn't write articles without a human requesting it. We could put people to work doing menial labor like the majority were doing in the UK prior to WWI. Or we could teach the masses to use this new tool to earn a living with. As an artist, I use AI to create beautiful images. As a writer, I use AI to stimulate my imagination and to help improve my writing ability. Not all of us are terrifically talented in all we need or want to do.
It doesn't write them, TODAY. Who know what it will do tomorrow. Not to mention, the writing and research of an Article is usually the long hard part. Coming up with a topic is generally easier. So now you can have 1 person churn out articles all day long. Heck, you don't even need articles anyone. A non-journalist can just ask the AI to give it info about stuff they want to hear about. And for funsies you could have those articles written in the style of Chandler Bing or Christopher Walken.
I understand AI doesn't presently write without request. However, given it's ability to write articles quickly and efficiently what's to stop the Free Press or NYT from firing all but a handful of "journalists" to type commands for the 20-50 articles the organization needs for the day? How does AI help you personally improve your writing or artistic ability when it's doing the critical thinking and artful creation for you? Can you even call the final product your own? How is using AI to create for you any less menial?
We haven't recovered economically from the scaled automation of the manufacturing sector which has left millions of well paying jobs obsolete. Now we're talking about injecting steroids into the automation process and heavily scaling into every remaining facet of the economy. When I say economy I'm worried about the not "terrifically talented" people who are already under- or un-employed.
AI is making people less important and eventually obsolete.
My friend, who is a writer of fiction, gave Chat a plot and asked it to invent a short story. She said the result was terrible as far as fiction goes, full of the worst tropes and clichés. And when I was a teacher, I could always tell when my students got their essays on line. If they’d done any in class writing on paper, I quickly became aware of their stylistic quirks and shortcomings, and knew the glib characterless essay they’d handed in had not been created by them. The “replacing artists and writers” thing really depends on 1. What you like to read; 2. Whether the art you primarily consume is already on the internet and on the covers of novels (i.e. made by graphic designers vs fine artists). Go look up “this mortal plastik” made by a fine artist Jessica Irish and ask yourself if Chat could have made that. I doubt it.
AI will never make people obsolete. Consider the mere fact that AI cannot observe the world and “input” information into a data set. Who is going to do that? AI cannot understand. It merely predicts on the information given. Humans are not replaceable in the slightest. AI is terrifying in that people actually believe that it can “think” and turn out things that are “true” beyond facts and that it will be the next Michelangelo, uniquely” creative, and not just plagiarizing every artist on the planet.
Geoffrey Hinton claimed almost a decade ago that, “We should stop training radiologists now. It’s just completely obvious that within five years, deep learning is going to do better than radiologists.” Has that happened? Not in the slightest. In fact, there is a shortage of radiologists.
AI hype has been overblown since the 50s. We can’t even fix “male pattern balding”...what makes us think we have created a sentient, super intelligence that will figure it out “for us”. 😂
The thinking is not what 'terrifies' me. It is the fact that I can go to an AI and say "Make me a picture of a super hero in the style of Picasso" and a minute later I have one. And that is TODAY. In a year or 5, who knows what all it will be able to do.
My issue with your POV is that you seem certain of what AI will and will not accomplish. But, had you asked most people if their computer could write a rap song in the style of bugs bunny, they would have laughed...yet here we are.
My issue isn't what AI is doing...it is what it will do that we haven't fully thought out yet. History is full of unintended consequences. Hence the paving stones on the road to hell.
What is “rap”? What is “bugs bunny”? AI did not come up with these notions. It is a POWERFUL tool to be sure. But we are actually not that much further along than AI models of the 50s. Every major AI developer/scientist has said “in five years...AI will take over, make humans obsolete...blah, blah, blah...” and....nearly 70 years later, we are still waiting. It will become increasingly good at “imitation” but never the thing itself. I do not argue that it’s not impressive, only that we must never confuse it for being actually intelligent, hence the word “artificial”.
Job automation, perhaps, yes....but the idea that we won’t need “journalists” because AI will write everything for us. In what world is ChatGPT going to get on an airplane headed for Ukraine, observe what is going on, formulate a moral and objective/subjective analysis, and deliver it to us in a way that is compelling and not just “predictive”. I agree that it has dangers. The main danger that it will make people increasingly stupid.
That raises a great question considering we supposedly have "journalists" at this moment. What is going on in Ukraine? I sure as fuck would like to actually know.
You've convinced me now on this. Maybe AI would be an upgrade to our present news and information model.
😂 I do not deny that we have a serious lack of work ethic, integrity, and motivation these days. Perhaps it will be actually be a Renaissance for critical thought...wouldn’t that be nice haha.
Heh...not many Journalists today do that anymore anyway. Just like how robots replaced repetitive manufacturing work, but still allowed skilled craftsman to work, this will remove all of the menial jobs and only leave the elite at the very top of the profession. The issue is that most people are NOT at the top of their profession.
One way or the other you need to acknowledge that a bunch of people are going to lose their jobs. And many of those people will not be able to just become AI programmers or whatever. Yes we will survive this....but the people who deal with the upheaval will suffer.
I agree with your analysis of what AI is and it's limitations. But I disagree that it will not replace humans as indeed many humans will be rendered obsolete. No way it is going to take 8 billion humans to enter the data set or maintain the robotics.
In a way this is already happening. Jorden Peterson has been talking about the fact that the bottom 10% on the IQ Scale (I maybe remembering the exact figures wrong) have pretty much always been unemployable even by the military's standards but now, because of technology, it is now the bottom 15% and the number will keep going higher. You have to be smarter than in past times to do the higher paying jobs. I think in Jordan's case he was referencing the declining educational system and some of the real world effects of that. AI will make that situation much worse. Might be where and why the universal income idea came about.
I had missed that stat. Maybe that is why foreign children are being tradfficked to clean slaughter houses and do cleanup on construction sites, and to pick the crops in Florida as Nancy P opined in reference to sending illegal migrants north.
No actually it will and does....it takes an increasingly large number of people to keep up with AI changing data sets, which is part of the reason it is so expensive to keep running. As it grows, it actually collapses on itself, without the help of many humans. However, I am not suggesting that AI will “create” 8 billion jobs, I’m suggesting that AI is not going to replace as many jobs as people think. A scientist observing an experiment in his lab and “making sense of it” is no less relevant in 50 years than it is today. Until AI has eyeballs (not likely, as again we’ve only scratched the surface of the complexity of the eye/brain phenomenon.) it is not going to “be us”. Even then....Chat GPT is a language model - predictive TEXT. It does not do other AI jobs. There is no narrow AI that is fully integrated (AGI) with body like sensory systems....which is a pipe dream at this point. Ask Chat GPT simple self referential questions and you will discover this quickly (unless of course the problem is reported and SOMEONE, not the AI itself, at a desk somewhere goes in quickly and changes the answer to be accurate.).
Still unsure what to think after reading this. Wasn't exactly a clear cut good vs. evil checklist. I'm still unsure why we need this AI other than to put computer programmers, journalists, doctors, teachers, retail employees, auto workers, etc etc etc etc out of work. Perhaps I don't understand economics very well, because I always understood in order to have consumers you have to have people earning money. As in employed. Therefore, shouldn't we be doing our best to expand the economy not put entire industries out of work?
I have no idea how to prepare my children, 3 and 6, to think about a future career. What will be viable in 15-20 years? Maybe this is where that basic universal income comes into play? Or, the Matrix?
Can someone please get Miles Dyson on the phone?!??? We're going to need help getting into the lab!
I have always wondered about UBI in this situation. If everything were to be automated, only a handful of people would need to work. The rest of us would get UBI, which we would just give to the few companies that control the automation. The government would tax that company and then give that tax money back to us? Sounds super fulfilling.
The problem with this model is companies seemingly fail to grasp there is no viable business without someone willing and ABLE to pay for the good or service. AI is replacing the employee and in turn destroying the CONSUMER!
Yup...that is what I never understood. Up until this point, technology has largely replaced lower skilled labor. AI is going to replace educated labor too. That shrinking number of jobs from both ends is going to take a toll, somewhere.
There are no solutions. Only tradeoffs.
AI doesn't write articles without a human requesting it. We could put people to work doing menial labor like the majority were doing in the UK prior to WWI. Or we could teach the masses to use this new tool to earn a living with. As an artist, I use AI to create beautiful images. As a writer, I use AI to stimulate my imagination and to help improve my writing ability. Not all of us are terrifically talented in all we need or want to do.
It doesn't write them, TODAY. Who know what it will do tomorrow. Not to mention, the writing and research of an Article is usually the long hard part. Coming up with a topic is generally easier. So now you can have 1 person churn out articles all day long. Heck, you don't even need articles anyone. A non-journalist can just ask the AI to give it info about stuff they want to hear about. And for funsies you could have those articles written in the style of Chandler Bing or Christopher Walken.
I understand AI doesn't presently write without request. However, given it's ability to write articles quickly and efficiently what's to stop the Free Press or NYT from firing all but a handful of "journalists" to type commands for the 20-50 articles the organization needs for the day? How does AI help you personally improve your writing or artistic ability when it's doing the critical thinking and artful creation for you? Can you even call the final product your own? How is using AI to create for you any less menial?
We haven't recovered economically from the scaled automation of the manufacturing sector which has left millions of well paying jobs obsolete. Now we're talking about injecting steroids into the automation process and heavily scaling into every remaining facet of the economy. When I say economy I'm worried about the not "terrifically talented" people who are already under- or un-employed.
AI is making people less important and eventually obsolete.
My friend, who is a writer of fiction, gave Chat a plot and asked it to invent a short story. She said the result was terrible as far as fiction goes, full of the worst tropes and clichés. And when I was a teacher, I could always tell when my students got their essays on line. If they’d done any in class writing on paper, I quickly became aware of their stylistic quirks and shortcomings, and knew the glib characterless essay they’d handed in had not been created by them. The “replacing artists and writers” thing really depends on 1. What you like to read; 2. Whether the art you primarily consume is already on the internet and on the covers of novels (i.e. made by graphic designers vs fine artists). Go look up “this mortal plastik” made by a fine artist Jessica Irish and ask yourself if Chat could have made that. I doubt it.
AI will never make people obsolete. Consider the mere fact that AI cannot observe the world and “input” information into a data set. Who is going to do that? AI cannot understand. It merely predicts on the information given. Humans are not replaceable in the slightest. AI is terrifying in that people actually believe that it can “think” and turn out things that are “true” beyond facts and that it will be the next Michelangelo, uniquely” creative, and not just plagiarizing every artist on the planet.
Geoffrey Hinton claimed almost a decade ago that, “We should stop training radiologists now. It’s just completely obvious that within five years, deep learning is going to do better than radiologists.” Has that happened? Not in the slightest. In fact, there is a shortage of radiologists.
AI hype has been overblown since the 50s. We can’t even fix “male pattern balding”...what makes us think we have created a sentient, super intelligence that will figure it out “for us”. 😂
I don't think it will replace us but it will eliminate a lot of jobs that people find meaningful.
From the original poster:
"We haven't recovered economically from the scaled automation of the manufacturing sector which has left millions of well paying jobs obsolete."
Think of that happening on a much larger scale.
The thinking is not what 'terrifies' me. It is the fact that I can go to an AI and say "Make me a picture of a super hero in the style of Picasso" and a minute later I have one. And that is TODAY. In a year or 5, who knows what all it will be able to do.
My issue with your POV is that you seem certain of what AI will and will not accomplish. But, had you asked most people if their computer could write a rap song in the style of bugs bunny, they would have laughed...yet here we are.
My issue isn't what AI is doing...it is what it will do that we haven't fully thought out yet. History is full of unintended consequences. Hence the paving stones on the road to hell.
What is “rap”? What is “bugs bunny”? AI did not come up with these notions. It is a POWERFUL tool to be sure. But we are actually not that much further along than AI models of the 50s. Every major AI developer/scientist has said “in five years...AI will take over, make humans obsolete...blah, blah, blah...” and....nearly 70 years later, we are still waiting. It will become increasingly good at “imitation” but never the thing itself. I do not argue that it’s not impressive, only that we must never confuse it for being actually intelligent, hence the word “artificial”.
I was born in the Midwest in the early 80's. I'm confident AI will finish the job automation started in the remainder of the country.
Job automation, perhaps, yes....but the idea that we won’t need “journalists” because AI will write everything for us. In what world is ChatGPT going to get on an airplane headed for Ukraine, observe what is going on, formulate a moral and objective/subjective analysis, and deliver it to us in a way that is compelling and not just “predictive”. I agree that it has dangers. The main danger that it will make people increasingly stupid.
That raises a great question considering we supposedly have "journalists" at this moment. What is going on in Ukraine? I sure as fuck would like to actually know.
You've convinced me now on this. Maybe AI would be an upgrade to our present news and information model.
Me too. During Iraq wars you knew what was going on in every major city. That was 20 years ago. I think they just don't want us to know,
😂 I do not deny that we have a serious lack of work ethic, integrity, and motivation these days. Perhaps it will be actually be a Renaissance for critical thought...wouldn’t that be nice haha.
Heh...not many Journalists today do that anymore anyway. Just like how robots replaced repetitive manufacturing work, but still allowed skilled craftsman to work, this will remove all of the menial jobs and only leave the elite at the very top of the profession. The issue is that most people are NOT at the top of their profession.
One way or the other you need to acknowledge that a bunch of people are going to lose their jobs. And many of those people will not be able to just become AI programmers or whatever. Yes we will survive this....but the people who deal with the upheaval will suffer.
I agree with your analysis of what AI is and it's limitations. But I disagree that it will not replace humans as indeed many humans will be rendered obsolete. No way it is going to take 8 billion humans to enter the data set or maintain the robotics.
In a way this is already happening. Jorden Peterson has been talking about the fact that the bottom 10% on the IQ Scale (I maybe remembering the exact figures wrong) have pretty much always been unemployable even by the military's standards but now, because of technology, it is now the bottom 15% and the number will keep going higher. You have to be smarter than in past times to do the higher paying jobs. I think in Jordan's case he was referencing the declining educational system and some of the real world effects of that. AI will make that situation much worse. Might be where and why the universal income idea came about.
I had missed that stat. Maybe that is why foreign children are being tradfficked to clean slaughter houses and do cleanup on construction sites, and to pick the crops in Florida as Nancy P opined in reference to sending illegal migrants north.
No actually it will and does....it takes an increasingly large number of people to keep up with AI changing data sets, which is part of the reason it is so expensive to keep running. As it grows, it actually collapses on itself, without the help of many humans. However, I am not suggesting that AI will “create” 8 billion jobs, I’m suggesting that AI is not going to replace as many jobs as people think. A scientist observing an experiment in his lab and “making sense of it” is no less relevant in 50 years than it is today. Until AI has eyeballs (not likely, as again we’ve only scratched the surface of the complexity of the eye/brain phenomenon.) it is not going to “be us”. Even then....Chat GPT is a language model - predictive TEXT. It does not do other AI jobs. There is no narrow AI that is fully integrated (AGI) with body like sensory systems....which is a pipe dream at this point. Ask Chat GPT simple self referential questions and you will discover this quickly (unless of course the problem is reported and SOMEONE, not the AI itself, at a desk somewhere goes in quickly and changes the answer to be accurate.).
I'm gardening* and was struggling to find a response. Perfect. Thanks, Lynne!!
*possibly my way of future survival?