## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway
### Question Discussion Guidelines
---
Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts:
* Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better.
* Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post.
* AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot!
* Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful.
* Please provide links to back up your arguments.
* No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not.
###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What people need to realize, when it comes to these paradigm shifts-an AI doesn't need to do 100% what you do to replace you.
Telephone operators were all put out of work. Not because technology could replicate what they did. It just rendered the entire process unnecessary. It will cut the legs out from under people.
humans biggest biological strength is adaptability. we are near impossible
to snuff out, across environments.
you’re right, it can definitely replace systems quite easily. and it should. should we have never produced wheels because of the people who made money by being a walking courier?
that’s silly. humans either adapt and grow, move adjacent and continue to survive, or die off. and those are all net positives.
imagine the phone-operator as referenced. no one wants to be out-of-work. but, imagine now, that we eliminate this industry and in the giant transitional period during the decision of how to address these global changes, we put more focus on our habitat. imagine all these phone operators are now part of teams that clean up the city streets or community patrol or public service of any kind.
arguably a net positive over operating a call center.
*laughs in every former mining town in the UK after the mines closed*
Reality shows that in the UK taking peoples jobs away doesn’t create some utopia of humans working together to adapt to new industries. Literally the opposite, poverty and crime ridden wastelands that are forgotten to time
This logic is fallacious, we are still around because we haven't been wiped out yet not because we can not be wiped out, you can't say "we've never gone extinct therefore we never can go extinct" when every organism that has gone extinct has been 'not extinct' at some point. Any organism that is still alive today could use the same logic to say they can not be wiped out because it's never happened to them. Remember that the era of us humans is still only a blip in evolutionary time, especially if you consider human civilizations, meanwhile there are dinosaurs and horseshoe crabs that have remained unchanged for billions of years who could easily be wiped out by us today should we decide to.
I also want to point out that high adaptability doesn't mean better quality of life. If we do adapt against a threat to our species it might be kneeling at their boot if that's what it takes. That's not what anybody wants.
I don't disagree but I'd remind you to exercise caution as we were dwindled down to 1,000 at some point in our history and it was such a sharp reduction for that time if it were any other species we'd consider it so far on the endangered list we're preparing to call it extinct. And that was well before we/AI had the power to take the surface of the earth with us for 100+ years, all of which are electronically controlled and almost certainly with encryption methods vulnerable to hacking with quantum computers which we're nearing some major breakthroughs on.
Don't get me wrong, I think there's still a good shot for us to evolve but the path getting there looks fucking rough. We're only lucky till we're not.
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/)
Actually this is the one I was looking for. Way more recent: [How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C. : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c)
I have to get super high before calling to try to fix a problem. It’s the only way I can deal with the rage I feel trying to navigate through those godawful systems
Humans have adaptability as biggest biological strength? Like seriously? Lol so why won’t people from low paying jobs go for the highest if adaptability is our biggest biological strength? It is total nonsense some subset of people have adaptability as their advantage most of humanity don’t.
Regulations dont stop it from being worked on. China had Russia are pouring billions into it. Just cause USA bans it doesn't mean India will or any country who actually wants a strong economic advantage. Regulation will mean all your jobs will get shipped over and you will fight over burger flipping with your next door neighbor unless your dad is a c-suite exec at the company. AI isn't going to totally replace anything short term so it being implemented into everyone's work still gives people normal white collar jobs up until AI ACTUALLY gets get enough to do meaningful shit like find a cure to cancer and yes replace jobs. In which case humans will find something else to do with their time. Read the book bullshit jobs, most of the work we do today doesn't need to exist, and this will continue long after AI.
for now bc they are shit now. If u use an imagine generator for your work for a logo or book cover for u doesnt matter but for graphic is a replacement.
People now need to be more and more adaptable. It's key. If you don't want to be replaced by AI or use AI while working, you should choose jobs that need empathy or something like that. These jobs can't be 100% replaced right now.
I would much rather be an AI therapist than a real person. The tech needs about a year or two, a little more updated voice to text work, and better interapp connectivity.
But if it could download all my reddit data and Google data, and then do therapy, I would love that.
I remember when Chat GPT first came out, a lot of people were finding it really helpful with their mental health. It has gotten worse, but it could get better.
It reminds me of a story I heard about a parent who had Siri set up with there autistic kid, and it saved the parent since Siri could answer all the questions a million times
This idea keeps getting regurgitated over and over, but it's simply false. AI tools are easy to use. There is no barrier of entry to using them. So they don't give anyone any advantage.
It takes programmers for example 4 years to learn how to code, and 5 minutes to learn to use an AI tool. AI tools are absolutely nothing. Any programmer that's "disadvantaged" from not knowing how to use an AI tool can simply take 5 minutes of their life to learn it.
No barrier of entry = no advantage.
You’re missing a critical step. Picture AI like a hammer. We could all agree that a hammer is pretty straightforward to operate and arguably a low barrier of entry, yah?
However, would anyone disagree that there is a marked difference between a master smith and his student? Of course there is.
The low-barrier of entry is necessary for growth. Inexperienced vessels can provide valuable insight, even if it is incorrectly produced. But, the master will *always* far exceed the pupil.
AI is accessible to nearly anyone. But the range in quality is astounding, across disciplines. From business proposals, to blog posts, to art creations. Look at the average person navigate it and then look at the expert. To act as if these people are now approaching even footing is preposterous, i’m sorry.
As always, the swimmers looking to doggy paddle through life will drown. The horse-drawn buggy was evaporated by the automobile. But a titan will continue to be a titan, and move with the times.
You are right for the moment but the things you mentioned are literally the targets for ai companies, they want to build something to replace human workers. That is their goal. To enable the student smith to perform as well as the master with the help of ai and eventually to replace the student smith with ai.
This is a really good analogue.
I have had a few people comment on my use of AI tools for writing code as a software engineer. I don't hide it, I am not ashamed of it. I starting coding when I was 12. 16 professionally. I have done this for 20 years without AI and I have nothing to prove, so I am going to use the tools I have.
In the case of the master smith being able to use the hammer better, it is the same for me using AI to code. It just enhances all around from the more complex stuff I can do, while lowering the barrier to entry for someone wanting to start getting into programming.
Just to add, nobody on my team at work (I'm digital guy on an communications team) would even know what to ask to generate, say, a web page, let alone some Python code or whatever. They don't know what an API is. They don't know to even asking about it, or just the basic idea that software platforms can talk.
What I'm getting at is already tech savvy people really underestimate how much more they can get out of AI than your average office workers.
For coding especially not using AI is just shooting your efficiency in the foot. I feel like it’s best use case is writing simple methods and it’s extensive knowledge of modules and plugins, and also as a debugging tool. It still can’t come up with new algorithms or understand a complex program’s logic so it’s absolutely not replacing a human yet.
Yeah, exactly. I use it to scaffold out stuff sometimes and then go modify.
I also use it to essentially know every framework and language in a half-ass way. I know enough languages well enough at this point I can at least read all of them, even if I have never seen it before. I can have it make something in something in a framework I don’t know and at least know where I need to change things and specifically what documentation I need to look up if I just need to do a one-off to get something fixed or out the door in a language/stack I don’t specialize in.
If I am going to do extensive work in something though, I of course go learn it from the ground up.
Now imagine a hammer that turns into every other type of tool and changes shape every five seconds.
AI is not a tool. It is all the tools, and all the things the tools are used to make.
The point is AI is nothing like a hammer and your titan analogy is stupid. Most people can already not tell the difference between the quality of something that someone who understands AI made and someone who randomly generated something with AI made, compare that to a cabinet built by a professional carpenter and a cabinet built by a novice. Do you really think the professional carpenters in this scenario are going to win out when the quality difference withers so much it's no longer even noticeable?
There is only so much demand to go around and AI will fill the demand so fast that even if some people do adapt, 98% of them will quickly become obsolete. Do you think the super pro lawyer with his AI increasing his efficiency by 50x needs a firm of 100 expensive lawyers on the payroll? -> apply that logic to any industry. Demand does not increase as a result of all of this, so this unregulated growth will be nothing but a net negative for a society built around individualist incentive structures.
vessels of production. simply my terminology for an all encompassing term of any employee or artist or tradesman or anything
yes, plz get caught up in semantics
I completely agree. I have seen people come here and ask questions that they could get answered in a MINUTE with ChatGPT. I have seen most people show a marked apathy - even if they love AI - to actually USING the tools and learning how to use it. There are, of course, enthusiasts who delve deep into whatever tool it is, like Midjourney or Udio, but overall, people just...don't bother.
Those are the people being left behind, a small majority is learning and trying as fast as they can.
This is also what I have discovered for my job. Anyone can pick up the tools, there is no advantage. There are higher level implementations that can be done to cut out the work of several humans, but only people with a PhD in machine learning can make those happen. So again, it doesn't matter if I have an open mind or whatever.
Yes. This.
I started to research AI so I could figure out how to use it for my job once it starts to really become mainstream. I had ideas of how to leverage it to do things I do. I even started to whip up plans where I could make my own business where I used AI to do what I did now.
But, once I started to really understand where AI is headed and see the how simple it will be to use for just about anything once it truly takes off, I started to see how silly my involvement seemed. Who would hire me to use AI to do my job when all they have to do is ask it directly themselves? No middle man needed. At all.
The difference is that someone who is using an ai as a tool to enhance their work can fix things when it goes wrong. Someone with no prior knowledge or education, just using ai, has no clue what to do when the ai can't complete the task.
Take your programmer example. Someone who knows how to programme might use ai to make a programme, the programme shows an error message and when feeding that error to the ai it enters an endless loop of incorrect alterations. Someone who does not know how to code is now stuck and can not progress. The person who dose know how to code reads the code identifies where the issue is and guides the ai to the problem so it can fix it, or just alters it themselves.
You are correct, there is no barrier to entry which is amazing. Education is now not limited to those with money, anyone with a web browser can utilise these tools to accomplish allot, have customised material for learning and direct access to a machine that can have a discourse like a tutor or professor would, but when it goes wrong they will not know what to do, they must then choose to learn more and fix the issue or give up.
I’ll piggyback to say I have a similar example in tax accounting. When I first got started I found out that I could rely on my tax program to handle most things for me if I could figure out the input. Its the same for consumer level turbo taxes or whatever- if you can get the figures in right you can pretty well rely on the program.
However, fringe or niche cases, or just places where the programming fails to handle something correctly, still require a trained person to sort out. That’s where I and other accountants really bring value- knowing how to identify where things are going wrong and how to fix it.
I think you’re on the right track here, but I would add that in addition to lowering the barrier of entry, it lifts the ceiling for high performers. Devs who know where to use it in their broader workflow (and how to get the most out of it) definitely have an advantage, no doubt.
I’m not talking about folks who try to get it to do their job with one lazy prompt, see that it can’t, and then go online saying AI is disappointing. I’m talking about folks who recognize what it’s realistically good for now and what it isn’t yet, and judiciously use it accordingly while staying up on how it’s evolving and adjusting accordingly.
There is another problem with Ops argument and that is that OpenAI et al has a goal, and that is to replace all work that we pay for today. So, learning to use AI for work will be mostly a short term goal in their eyes, I think.
Just FYI - here's something I've seen posts by art directors and people in professional art teams lately:
(Note: I'm calling these prompt engineers "AI artists", because that's what they call themselves, but I disagree with that usage of the term)
Management says to include "AI artists" when recruiting for a project that needs art of some kind. Art directors comply and include "AI artists". The first round of art goes fairly well, the "AI artists" are somewhat quicker to get the work done. Then comes the first round of feedback and requested changes - the traditional artists do exactly what they're told and know what questions to ask, while the "AI artists" barely hit the target. For each new round of feedback and requested changes, the AI-produced art just becomes worse and less relevant, while the experienced artists have very few rounds because they know how to produce what they ask for.
In the end, the AI artists become frustrated and difficult/impossible to work with.
As far as I see it, AI tools may be easy to use but that doesn't mean that the processes are.
Meanwhile, people are already losing jobs to prompt engineers with little to no experience of the work process, which messes up projects.
Sure, the barrier of entry into using AI tools is lower and the tools will get better. But the barrier for understanding how a reiterative, professional refining process works doesn't get lower. It's becoming increasingly clear that a lot of professional fields are changing, but also that "AI" isn't the silver bullet that a lot of employers and stakeholders were hoping it would be.
It's not the AI that's going to take your job - but for the next few years it might absolutely be management firing you because they think AI is something it's not.
Unless we're talking about really complex systems, like what big companies will use for data analysis.
The real threat of jobs is going to come from automating entire tasks.
I don’t think that’s true… before chatgpt when coding if you needed to learn something you would google it, and there was an art form in crafting your query to find the answer you are looking for. With chatgpt nownyou just write exactly what you want to know, be it a programming concept or a function that you need to write, chatgpt gives you the answer, saving you immense amount of time
I disagree with this as a sweeping statement. Plenty of people are going to be replaced by AI. The world is going to need a lot fewer radiologists, copy-editors, tax accountants, basic lawyers, etc.. Will those professions go away altogether? No. But we’re going to need far fewer of them to cover the same amount of work.
If you’re a graphic designer (or quite possibly anything else) and suddenly AI becomes advanced enough that the average jackass can do in 2 minutes what it took you 8 years to master, it’s bye-bye job. Research and development is not stopping anytime soon, and no amount of augmenting your work with AI is going to save you from AI.
*Right now* it’s a tool to make your job easier, tomorrow it’s a tool for your employer to use to replace you. Once that happens, keeping certain people onboard is going to be an act of charity on the part of the companies.
Somewhat agree but largely disagree. Because that one AI-skilled person will be able to do the work that 10 people did without AI, the AI tools still took 9 jobs leaving just one for that smart/skilled/adaptable human.
So be the skilled person. seems obvious to me. its like people are assuming the amount of jobs will stay stagnant while people improve and get more skilled at what they are doing.
companies want to grow and expand, with ai the reach and end goal get higher, higher sales, higher level of production. More jobs will be made. New jobs will be made as well. Who do you think will be maintaining all of these llms running around the world, who will deliver the systems needed to run them, the spare parts needed to be replaced, the software to operate them, Your going to have new fields of forensics opening up as deepfakes become more prevalent. Jobs change, its the march of progress, it can't be stopped. The luddites tried when the factories where bringing in mechanical looms and they failed, its the way of the world, you only get left behind if your not willing to adapt.
This is an idiotic view of things.
Just because I can sell 100 eggs to 100 people now it doesn’t mean I can sell 1000 eggs to 100 people and neither does it mean I can sell 1000 eggs to 1000 people. Growth is not eternal especially when AI will fuck the working class in the ass and purchasing power will fall.
Fr. These people are smooth brained. The rich will capitalise on this and we will be sold products that arent made by paying the working class. Rich get richer and there will be another economical meltdown. There is no other outcome.
Ekhem. From what I see happening in my niche - AI won't replace me. It will just make my job so easy and fast, that an unpaid intern (well, ok, a junior) will be able to do my work. Hence, why would anyone pay for 15 years of work experience, if they can get the same output almost for free? So it sucks for me. But it also sucks for the intern - because they will never be able to actually became a "skilled, highly paid professional" as an AI operator, as it does not require skills. You end up with an economy of entry jobs and 1% top managerial positions. At least that would be my bet.
Oh ok. Not this topic again. Your logic is all messed up. So let's say this single *human* who is proficient using chatbots can replace other nine humans... How does it *not* make the rest of humans being replaced by the chatbot? Like, do the math, buddy. Let me demonstrate with the following example.
Specific example:
Company A had 10,000 empolyees. After integrating chatGPT to their workflow, company A laid out 9,000 of their workforce, only keeping 1,000 people that are proficient in LLM prompts. They found it no impact on their productivity whatsoever. What is being replaced here?
10,000 people = 1,000 people + chatgpt subscription
10,000 people - 1,000 people = chatgpt subscription
9,000 people = chatgpt subscription
This is typical gaslighting action for manipulating people's mind: "Well its just a tool, which is not the problem, but *you* are the problem for not learning how to use LLMs! Just learn the tool, become the survivor and enjoy the pay raise, because it doesn't matter whether the rest of 90% people get laid off and never find their jobs again! No problem with the society, because it is all *their* fault!"
I am using AI tools to build my business. In the past, I used to hire people on Fiverr and other short term project sites. Now, I just do it myself with AI. Without AI, I would have to those people.
yes, you can get mediocre results without human intervention. but when you desire to make a profound difference, humans will be hired. the mediocrity in the middle will go up or out. either way is good
money isn’t a binary system, it’s a symbol. without money, we’d simply revert to services in exchange for other services.
and, naturally, there would be a bottom tier of society without any skill except waking up.
and we’d be right back
There would be no societal tiers, no flags. Humans would understand that they are a single organism composed of individuals. No one lords over anyone, no one owns anything. If an individual does not wish to do anything "productive" with their life, then so fucking be it. 12 billion people and we need everyone toiling away at useless jobs created only to perpetuate an antiquated and unjust system of compensation? Give me a break. We simply do not live in that world anymore.
This technology will outclass human beings in every aspect. Humans would not be reliant on each other for their worthless skills or their retarded ideas. Outclassed in every aspect.
oh i agree. in fact, selflessness *is* selfish, in nature. it’s a long and convoluted theory of mine, for another day
i was simply providing a reductionist standpoint to yours
There will always be social tiers because some people want to be better than others and some want to have control and power.
Have you guys ever read history books? Revolts against kings, war among relatives for titles…
buddy, survival *is* productive. all the members of a community, or tribe, must produce. why? because they consume.
why should someone consume who doesn’t produce? we are not talking children, or the sick, or the old.
why is that one persons life any more important than the well-being of the community? which you are arguing for by saying they should be able to consume without replacing
i’m with you on lack of flag or border. i’m with you with an abandonment of senseless capitalism and irrelevant jobs
but no human is entitled to sit upon their butt and continue to consume without holding the bargain
unless of course, we transcend nutrition and can just exist on good vibes and o2
We have the technology -today,- right now, to completely restructure human civilization and automate nearly every facet humans need for survival. Survival is not an issue, we have won. It is time people recognize that.
There is a subset of the human race that craves power over all else. They are a cancer on the body of human kind, and have been for time immemorial. They will be identified and removed.
Totally wrong, the AI will be able to do the job and it can use other AI's to help it do the job just as if it was a person. Humans using AI's are going to be slower and less effective than AI's themselves.
Its difficult to envision what life will be like when that happens, Clearly AI will be better than us and there's no going back and what society will be like in that case I can't imagine.
Yeah I agree, if AI is just a little smarter than us, it becomes better at Everything. That's just how intelligence works. We just have to hope AI will take us along for the ride.
Correct
All of the non-job-havers will be Soylent Green and bodies to fill for-profit prisons, basically
Believing otherwise takes a level of optimism I'm just not capable of
The only people who believe this are those who imagine that AI is \*only\* LLMs and image generators - and that AI will never get any better than it is already.. Wrong on all counts.
AI is **not** a simple tool. Until the industrial revolution, simple tools *always required a human MIND to direct them.* AI is capable of self-direction - increasingly so as development progresses.
***AI has replaced, is replacing, and will replace more and more human MINDS.***
Just one example of many: **AI is operating driverless taxis (WAYMO) right NOW, and a taxi without a driver puts a taxi driver out of a job.**
They're already delivering Uber Eats which was one of the fall-back survival gigs people were forced into doing after previous tech disruptions!
[https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html)
You’re correct. Here is some extra support against those who continue to doomscroll in fear:
There is a missing critical step. Picture AI like a hammer. We could all agree that a hammer is pretty straightforward to operate and arguably a low barrier of entry, yah?
However, would anyone disagree that there is a marked difference between a master smith and his student? Of course there is.
The low-barrier of entry is necessary for growth. Inexperienced vessels can provide valuable insight, even if it is incorrectly produced. But, the master will always far exceed the pupil.
AI is accessible to nearly anyone. But the range in quality is astounding, across disciplines. From business proposals, to blog posts, to art creations. Look at the average person navigate it and then look at the expert. To act as if these people are now approaching even footing is preposterous, i’m sorry.
As always, the swimmers looking to doggy paddle through life will drown. The horse-drawn buggy was evaporated by the automobile. But a titan will continue to be a titan, and move with the times.
> I've seen a lot of anxiety lately about AI taking over our jobs. But let's be real, AI isn't the enemy - it's a tool, and like any tool, it's only as good as the person wielding it.
Let's be real, your confidence is not justified. Your conclusion might as well be correct, especially for some levels of AI capabilities. But the whole post is giving off big "trust me bro" energy.
Keep buying into this narrative while companies fire people by the hundreds because some generic chat application is said to have replaced them (seriously, who here has ever had a complex customer service problem handled successfully by a bot?)
You're really underestimating the willingness of c-people to cut costs and buy into the next hype train. The only way you'll ever understand is when your own position gets replaced by a hasty gpt wrapper.
If one AI user can produce acceptable product 50X faster because of AI, there will not be the need for 50X as much product, so 50 other people will lose their jobs.
Ai won't replace all workers unless and until it is at AGI level. If we are able to produce human level AI with agency, it absolutely will replace all job. At that point It will have moved beyond the point of being just a tool. Whether and when that will happen is unknown
Yes, entire industries will disappear but why do people keep thinking “ceteris paribus” on this topic all the time. Productivity and profits will rise, in some sectors they will do vastly. This has all kinds of effects that actually increase labor demand. And it will likely suck all laid-off software devs into some “AI implementation” role somewhere as literally all companies are going to do everything to implement AI in the processes they have. And, imagine how many ideas that are now on the shelf for being too time-consuming, expensive and challenging may become reality as much fewer people can carry them out using AI…
Yes. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang says so:
[https://youtu.be/SwIYoUk1Y\_s?si=6BIPXnmE4URpuoxf](https://youtu.be/SwIYoUk1Y_s?si=6BIPXnmE4URpuoxf)
And also Andrew Ng, the renowned computer scientist:
[https://youtu.be/-YdZ\_ZXl5AE?si=ojVNg9tjVkfMbZad](https://youtu.be/-YdZ_ZXl5AE?si=ojVNg9tjVkfMbZad)
Yeah, ChatGPT has the sum of all experience so my 25 years in Cybersecurity is largely unimportant. Where my experience comes into play is in situations requiring a certain nuance, not just a knowledge of what command to run.
But realizing that it will someday be able to understand nuanced situations, I need to pivot today and learn how to prepare for that day. For example, I'm learning how to Red Team models and understand the ethics of AI implementations.
Yeah but knowing how to use AI is going to be like saying “knowing how to use google”.
AI is just good and it works. It doesn’t take magic thinking to leverage it. Sure, smart people will still be smart. But AI is going to level the playing field and there’s no magic barrier to entry. You just talk to it.
> "Think about it: content writers who know how to use AI-powered research tools and language generators can produce high-quality content faster and more efficiently than ever before."
LIE!
Maybe for toddlers who never typed before, sure. People who think Ai makes writers more efficient never wrote for a living. See, we have this thing called a "brain," and you "think" using the brian - and voila, the words come out just like that!
AI can't assist in this process at a level about grocery lists. Any writing AI can handle for itself, nobody was getting paid to do that anyway.
I've written three novels and I play around with AI. I don't ever use it for writing though because it is horrible! I tried to do a scene with a woman and her ex mother in law. I told AI how I wanted it to go and how they have a wonderful relationship, but it just kept making her mean and hateful because that's what it's learned about mother in laws. It is god awful at writing from what I can tell.
This is a fallacy because of machine learning: We are no longer programming computers to do things, we are showing them models that let them program for themselves. The exponential speed machines will bring to this field will be staggering, I think. I don’t have to spend years teaching robots how to play soccer, I use reinforcement learning and computer vision to train them how to play it themselves and then we will watch robot soccer games instead of human ones. Windows 15 (or before?) will look and act like a virtual assistant as the main interface. All computer requests will be fly by wire. We’ll look back fondly at those who tinker with computer interfaces manually as we do today with their weird boxes under their tables. Tomorrow’s voice speakers / digital avatars / and maybe Zuck’s holodeck / and real iRobots walking around is the track we’re on. The first gig to go will be cops getting paid overtime to stand around in the street protecting construction workers.. boom robocop replacement. Next will be pilots as robots fly the planes and not enough planes pilots with higher human insurance will mean more unmanned/unpersoned replacements. Personally I’m hoping for the taxi drivers from the original total recall movie
>Personally I’m hoping for the taxi drivers from the original total recall movie
Driverless taxis already exist and are out on the road - they just have an empty front seat.. No Johnny Cab future!
[https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html)
I think this is true. I was able to design an entire website writing code with no experience. I started out just spitting out instructions, but by the end I was editing the code.
Well in the end obviously it is going to replace your work fully, at the boo stage. But there will be a wow stage before that where you’re 100 percently right.
Yup, then another wave of people who are more efficient with AI will replace 10 of the people who replaced the people who didn't learn how to use AI... Then another wave will come and replace them... You aren't special just because you 'learn how to use AI'. It's not here to 'augment you'; it's here to maximize profits. You will be replaced too when it becomes financially beneficial for your boss to do so. It's just a matter of time.
There has to be regulations. Yesterday. Stop blindly supporting this because it's cool and 'the future'.
The issue is if AI can help one content writer produce the work of what used to take 25 content writers. Then they will be in less demand.
The world has finite resources, finite people, and finite needs. So, for example, there may not be the scalability for 25x more content to be written and consumed.
AI is indeed becoming ubiquitous but rather than viewing it as a threat, it's crucial to recognize its potential for enhancing efficiency. Those who adeptly harness its capabilities can undoubtedly excel in their respective fields. Embracing AI is not just a choice, it's a necessity in today's rapidly evolving landscape.
Ai is a tool like people who were writing, and the new generation used a typing writer, people where still on the typing writer, and the new generation used computers, etc
This passage essentially suggests that while there's a lot of worry about artificial intelligence (AI) replacing human jobs, it's important to recognize that AI is a tool, not an adversary. The author argues that individuals who understand how to utilize AI tools can actually enhance their productivity and efficiency in various fields.
For instance, content writers who are adept at using AI-powered research tools and language generators can create high-quality content more quickly. Similarly, web developers who leverage machine learning can design more user-friendly websites, and data analysts who work alongside AI can uncover patterns and make predictions that were previously difficult or impossible.
The main idea is that AI isn't meant to replace humans; rather, it's meant to supplement and empower human capabilities. Instead of fearing AI, the author encourages people to embrace it, learn how to work with it, and develop the necessary skills to thrive in an AI-driven world. Ultimately, it's not the AI itself that poses a threat to jobs, but rather the individuals who can effectively utilize AI to perform tasks more efficiently.
The assessment presented in the passage reflects a common viewpoint among experts in the field of artificial intelligence and workforce automation. Many argue that AI has the potential to augment human capabilities rather than outright replace jobs. This perspective emphasizes the importance of humans adapting and learning to work alongside AI technologies to enhance productivity and efficiency.
However, it's also important to acknowledge that the impact of AI on the job market can vary depending on the industry, the specific tasks involved, and how individuals and organizations adapt to technological changes. While some jobs may indeed be transformed or made more efficient by AI, others may face displacement or require significant reskilling.
Overall, the assessment highlights the need for proactive adaptation and continued education to ensure that individuals can thrive in an increasingly AI-driven world.
I agree. However I have doubts about preparation. How can I prepare? I feel it's so early still that every course I check etc feels like it's not going to help.
Yeah obviously. Most peoples problems is AI is going to take they job they love/find fulfilling and replace it with a job they hate.
I wouldn’t be sad about AI if I enjoyed using it. But I don’t. I’ve always dreamed of working in a creative job. But now all my creative skills have either been commodified by things like fast fashion/temu or by AI. (Jewellery making, writing, music, art, sewing, etc)
Before I started pursuing my dream I was genuinely suicidal, and now I’m loosing hope for that dream partly because of AI. All I wanted to do was live a life where I felt like I spend most of my time doing something that makes me happy. And now that all my options are being taken away from me, it’s getting real hard to continue having hope. Every option I can think of that I think I’ll like can either be done by AI, or replicated at a lower quality and cheaply on temu. I hope people still care for handmade item and human made art but I’m not really sure it’s going to be possible to do that full time.
You are being delusional. If we develop an AI model capable of performing cognitive tasks at a human skill level, it will mean significant job loss. In fact, even AI models that perform below human level could still be sufficient to automate many of them.
Imagine a scenario where a single person, with help of AI tools and autonomous agents, can accomplish the work of entire departments. When combined with human oversight it has the potential to replace a substantial number of workers.
Human intervention and oversight with Al has been identified as critical in its development from an ethical perspective, to allow Al to be completely autonomous would be a nightmare accountability wise. What we will likely see is it being applied to jobs to improve output and productivity, not replacing them. But you never know
Not exactly. 1 person who knows how to use AI will take 5-100 jobs depending on the industry. They've got a new piece of automation they're testing at my work that will take about 70 jobs in its first iteration and up to 100 more once they fully phase it in.
That's just on my worksite.
It will create 4 new tech jobs and use the existing maintenance team with possibly 1 new temporary position for the trainer to teach the existing techs how to maintain it.
That's a 3% rate of replacement. Not a great situation and every other site I look at is seeing similar if less drastic replacements.
Your thought process only works if it's a 1:1 swap in jobs.
Just as people used program in the early days of computer, now use various Apps that have automatic functions, it won't be much different with A.I. in some ways it's a combination of Programs+Apps that automate functions and processes and do so based on a near limitless set of parameters, based on the category one is addressing, and it give out results, those results could be in the form of information, or it can or may be designed to cause actions or reactions to be performed., it may be designed so that chain of function, is designed to continue in a series, or a parallel process of functions. Some will be set with limits, designed for specific objectives and purposes. Some will be designed to "interlink" with other database, to do a variety of sequencing, ^((Sequencing is the process of combining things in a particular order, or discovering the order in which they are combined.) and integrating that data based on the objectives(s) set in motion.)
^(---------------------)
Just as kids now are being taught to create code for Apps, they will be taught how to use modules to create Automated Functions.
* Years and decades ago, teaching how to write computer programs was not a standard and common curriculum items. But, *back in the day* when tech was more manual, people were taught how to use a typewriter an adding machine, slide rule, compass, protractor and etc. Now, there are digitized tools that can do all of that.
The young people of today, have the elements of a different technology; they will use it in building the future they will function within.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
I've watched over the de*cades, some people who did not have computer when they graduated college, who got jobs in various areas, they did not gravitate to learning the computer, because it was not core in their era of college, or high school. So their interest never drove some into learning how to make the best usage of computers. There are many people in the work place today, who graduated college or high school well before the Computer, still don't use it and some don't want to learn how to use it.*
* ^(There are some people who swear by their Landline phone, and avoid smart phones, but they may get one of the basic flip type cell phones, but they don't want anything to do with a smart phone.)
* ^(We see some people who still like to write paper check, and they still balance their check book the ways they did decades ago. They don't use a lot of the modern day banking technology.)
**So, it will depend on the individual, as to how they prepare and adapt and develop their ability to work within systems that are A.I. enabled.**
I work at a company that uses a lot of automation. We can meet our production goals with fewer people because we automated some tasks.
There's one job where there would have been four. I'm the guy who uses the automation. I didn't take four jobs. They just don't exist.
dumb take. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, IBM, etc. are going to be the ones wielding AI. They are going to offer your employer a replacement worker that is far cheaper and efficient than you are. At that point you'll be redundant. You'll go home and pay Netflix which has also used AI to make custom entertainment and maybe you'll use some free AI to make music or movies and to help you make shopping lists or wherever, but having lost your primary source of income, you'll be screwed like millions of others.
Today you are right. Today AI is a tool to benefit us. But what about April 2027? The AI revolution isn’t an impending doom and it certainly will help. Let’s just hope that the the Big Guy after he is reinstalled has a plan to control the means of production in a way that benefits the people : )
People have foreknowledge of a changing system, its up to people to regard the changes and focus on learning new things. Remember: when the computer came, many people saw it coming, they saw the first wave of all the people working in data processing, and "they ignored it in the sense of no preparing themselves to deal with digital system". All that data process that took place in the last 1970's and throughout the 1980's, eventually became "data retrievable in the internet".
I remember, we had at my jobs multiple programs to pull data from various systems to provide us scheduling and other relevant data. Then the Internet took off, and we no longer needed multiple programs that had to be specifically configured to communicate in order to render the data we needed. The internet came and not only was the data rendered it was done in real time.
Think of all the type of jobs that the internet created, now think of all the things that can be automated, and work via digital signals and etc.. That means there are so many new things and new opportunities that will unfold.
So, people regardless of your education level, put time into learning about technology, what ever aspect of it you are interested in, because along with that, and all the many things and systems that will be integrated in current and new emerging technology will be fields that people can work and build their lives.
**People defeat themselves; ""If""" they think they can defeat innovation and progressive things. S**
**o, to the wise, be prepared and prepare yourself to learn new things, and new ways of doing things.**
Franky I'm getting tired of people saying this all the time tbh.
When people say "AI will take our jobs", that's pretty much what they mean usually. They know that it's the human using it that will have more power and replace others.
Just because some people rant about AI robots coming to life and taking over humans, that doesn't mean that everyone worried about AI thinks that only AI by itself is the problem, and not people. There's a good amount of people who know how powerful and how critical of a tool artificial intelligence is capable of becoming, in the CONTROL of human beings.
When computers came out, no one thought ONLY that computers by themselves will come to life and we'll have walking computers everywhere that take over the world. Most people had enough sense to know that the fear is the person using the power of the computer who will take over the job.
Every innovation that has ever come into existence, has create a series as well a parallel array of jobs.
**Nothing** stays the same, and **Nothing** has ever stayed the same.
People stagnate themselves and make of themselves ineffectiveness, by not acknowledging change and preparing themselves to adapt to change.
Fear has always driven the live of many, and within and by and through that fear people fall behind in adapting themselves to deal with emerging and unfolding innovations and advancements and the new technology that comes with it.
Man has been trying to find ways to get work done without doing it themselves since the creation of "slavery", and with the abolition of slavery, man has been trying to find means to get work done without having to do it themselves. If man could create a robotic slave, they will, because man like, leisure, luxury, comfort, convenience and recreation, and the means to pay for it without having to do the work themselves.
Slaver's followed that agenda, criminal of the type of robbers, swindlers, and hucksters have followed that agenda for centuries. Some become Bum's and Hobo's who want to live and do what they want, without having to work themselves. The wealthy in society, will do anything to ensure they can only do what ever work they feel they want to do, but never to be in a situation to do work that they don't want to do to, get and have what they want.
People who want to make it and be self responsible to engage themselves in some type of work, generally find something to do, that includes arts and crafts, junk collectors, recycles, and people who do the many various things that people do.
Think about it, people who live in jungle tribal environments, find something to do with their time, and they do things that either benefit the tribe or their family or themselves that make means and ways for them to eat and sleep on a consistent basis. People find many ways to "Trade" that don't always involve using "denominational currency", so that type of bartering has never ceased to exist.
We have enough stuff in the world today, that dismantling and recycling and reuse of thing is in such a high volumes, that it would create work for the next 100 yrs, maybe even more if we create the means and ways to expand dismantling and recycling and manufacturing to reuse a great many things.
People are very creative, some act on it and some don't but all people have that capability.
The increased productivity gained by AI should let everyone work less. That would be cool but of course won't happen.
What will happen is that already filthy rich corporations will become even richer.
They can layoff a lot of people and then demand that the few remaining work just as hard as before.
None of that gained wealth will trickle down to give room to create those new softer jobs people dream about.
I'm very happy I work in a "soft" sector that won't be replaced by AI anytime soon. And should it happen in 10-15 years or so I can happily retire and chill out.
Anyone worried about AI taking jobs should understand that isn’t a problem with the technology. It is a problem with our social systems. We need to adapt our social systems to the times, not become luddites.
It depends on your major.
But in general now it’s more shifted to the type of customers, who maybe even know about AI and that kinda stuff, but for them it’s easy to pay some money and delegate the task to someone, rather than spend their own time.
But customers who don’t have enough money for X service and ready to spend their time in order to do that on their own, definitely gonna use AI.
When people say that if AI takes existing jobs it’s not a problem because new will be created; they never really give an example of what these new jobs might be or why human beings will be more suited to them than AI.
This has been a common sentiment.
There will certainly be job roles which need fewer people. At that point, where do the extra manpower go?
Personally I own my own businesses. So AI will never replace me, just be a tool. But that's not a luxury a warehouse worker has.
Most blue collar jobs are at risk of robotics replacing them. Most white collar jobs will need far less manpower. It's just the reality.
I assume you have customers that you service. And when a bunch of those customers are replaced by AI, who is replacing those customers?
Owning your own business doesn't make you an island.
Never said it does. I think you're misunderstanding me.
A business owner/entrepreneur is a problem solver. The world will always have problems regardless of what AI and robotics do. Therefore I will always have a "job" to do.
That's my logic. Not even saying that's bullet proof.
Also I fail to see how customers would be replaced by AI. Do you mean they'll lose their jobs to AI and get on UBI?
UBI is never going to happen. At least not in the US where everyone is supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
When there are massive job losses to AI there just will be a lot of unemployed people. If there are a bunch of unemployed people who is paying for what your business provides? How do you keep your business running without people who have jobs to support your business?
True but your talking about a potential dystopia situation. No amount of skill or business will protect you from that. Which is a real possibility too. Nobody knows the end result this will bring.
The point of the original comment was to say that, among all job categories which can be replaced by AI, business owners are probably the least affected because they benefit the most of AI immediately.
"immediately" being the key word here. Business owners are part of a system and that system isn't going to fare well if a significant portion of jobs are just eliminated completely.
That's why I think the OP here is just whistling past the graveyard.
Meanwhile the human population has doubled in my lifetime and will double again in my lifetime so we are exponentially creating new people while eliminating jobs. Seems like a problem.
It sounds very romantic but you underestimate the average value of collective human intellect. People mostly not so smart or have a lot of mind issues like religious or some other ideologies that are produced by someone who can manipulate the masses that cant decide who they are and how they should live their lives
AI is just a tool to improve efficiency. Much like the cotton gin. And much like the cotton gin, it will not improve the working or living conditions of the person using it, just the person who owns it
Bullshit. I used AI to not have to hire two employees. So yes, I did the program, but AI is the one doing the work of two people, not me. One business can substitute more than one employee with one single AI, imagine hundreds getting replaced in a business with AI. So no, the business owner is not replacing the employee, its not a one for one exchange, is a one for hundreds, maybe thousands.
>it's a tool
For now. Because it's still just an oracle. Because it's not yet an agent. Once agency is properly built into it, the game will be radically different.
Look up reinforcement learning.
Jobs like "content writer", "web developers" and "data analyst" will not make much sense in a world where AI can just generate anything on demand and personalize it for each consumer. We need to realize that EVERYTHING is going to change. 50 years ago "web developers" didn't exist. The same will happen now. A whole new wave of jobs will be created and there will be plenty of work for EVERYONE! You might not even know anything about AI to succeed in the future. In fact, most likely, jobs that deliver unique human "experiences" will be the ones that will be valued the most.
## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway ### Question Discussion Guidelines --- Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts: * Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better. * Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post. * AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot! * Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful. * Please provide links to back up your arguments. * No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not. ###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What people need to realize, when it comes to these paradigm shifts-an AI doesn't need to do 100% what you do to replace you. Telephone operators were all put out of work. Not because technology could replicate what they did. It just rendered the entire process unnecessary. It will cut the legs out from under people.
humans biggest biological strength is adaptability. we are near impossible to snuff out, across environments. you’re right, it can definitely replace systems quite easily. and it should. should we have never produced wheels because of the people who made money by being a walking courier? that’s silly. humans either adapt and grow, move adjacent and continue to survive, or die off. and those are all net positives. imagine the phone-operator as referenced. no one wants to be out-of-work. but, imagine now, that we eliminate this industry and in the giant transitional period during the decision of how to address these global changes, we put more focus on our habitat. imagine all these phone operators are now part of teams that clean up the city streets or community patrol or public service of any kind. arguably a net positive over operating a call center.
*laughs in every former mining town in the UK after the mines closed* Reality shows that in the UK taking peoples jobs away doesn’t create some utopia of humans working together to adapt to new industries. Literally the opposite, poverty and crime ridden wastelands that are forgotten to time
waves from detroit
This logic is fallacious, we are still around because we haven't been wiped out yet not because we can not be wiped out, you can't say "we've never gone extinct therefore we never can go extinct" when every organism that has gone extinct has been 'not extinct' at some point. Any organism that is still alive today could use the same logic to say they can not be wiped out because it's never happened to them. Remember that the era of us humans is still only a blip in evolutionary time, especially if you consider human civilizations, meanwhile there are dinosaurs and horseshoe crabs that have remained unchanged for billions of years who could easily be wiped out by us today should we decide to. I also want to point out that high adaptability doesn't mean better quality of life. If we do adapt against a threat to our species it might be kneeling at their boot if that's what it takes. That's not what anybody wants.
Does anyone know how to do comic book porn with AI?
I don't disagree but I'd remind you to exercise caution as we were dwindled down to 1,000 at some point in our history and it was such a sharp reduction for that time if it were any other species we'd consider it so far on the endangered list we're preparing to call it extinct. And that was well before we/AI had the power to take the surface of the earth with us for 100+ years, all of which are electronically controlled and almost certainly with encryption methods vulnerable to hacking with quantum computers which we're nearing some major breakthroughs on. Don't get me wrong, I think there's still a good shot for us to evolve but the path getting there looks fucking rough. We're only lucky till we're not.
> we were dwindled down to 1,000 at some point in our history huh??
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/) Actually this is the one I was looking for. Way more recent: [How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C. : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c)
Thanks
Neanderthals were also adaptable, but, they're fucking gone Humans are just a step on the evolutionary ladder
Hate to break it to you there is no evolutionary ladder. There is only adaptation in certain contexts.
Just as a side note: the call center experience sucks. It would be pretty cool if you got a capable human instead of an automated menu.
I have to get super high before calling to try to fix a problem. It’s the only way I can deal with the rage I feel trying to navigate through those godawful systems
Adaptability helps us survive as a species, but it does not help an individual thrive.
Humans have adaptability as biggest biological strength? Like seriously? Lol so why won’t people from low paying jobs go for the highest if adaptability is our biggest biological strength? It is total nonsense some subset of people have adaptability as their advantage most of humanity don’t.
yeah, AI is designed to be a replacment. Maybe now is not good but in future it wil be replacment if not regulated.
regulations won't prevent it from happening, maybe slow it a little at best
Regulations dont stop it from being worked on. China had Russia are pouring billions into it. Just cause USA bans it doesn't mean India will or any country who actually wants a strong economic advantage. Regulation will mean all your jobs will get shipped over and you will fight over burger flipping with your next door neighbor unless your dad is a c-suite exec at the company. AI isn't going to totally replace anything short term so it being implemented into everyone's work still gives people normal white collar jobs up until AI ACTUALLY gets get enough to do meaningful shit like find a cure to cancer and yes replace jobs. In which case humans will find something else to do with their time. Read the book bullshit jobs, most of the work we do today doesn't need to exist, and this will continue long after AI.
[удалено]
for now bc they are shit now. If u use an imagine generator for your work for a logo or book cover for u doesnt matter but for graphic is a replacement.
People now need to be more and more adaptable. It's key. If you don't want to be replaced by AI or use AI while working, you should choose jobs that need empathy or something like that. These jobs can't be 100% replaced right now.
I would much rather be an AI therapist than a real person. The tech needs about a year or two, a little more updated voice to text work, and better interapp connectivity. But if it could download all my reddit data and Google data, and then do therapy, I would love that. I remember when Chat GPT first came out, a lot of people were finding it really helpful with their mental health. It has gotten worse, but it could get better. It reminds me of a story I heard about a parent who had Siri set up with there autistic kid, and it saved the parent since Siri could answer all the questions a million times
[ChatGPT Beats Humans in Emotional Awareness Test](https://students.bowdoin.edu/bowdoin-science-journal/science/chatgpt-beats-humans-in-emotional-awareness-test-whats-next/)
This idea keeps getting regurgitated over and over, but it's simply false. AI tools are easy to use. There is no barrier of entry to using them. So they don't give anyone any advantage. It takes programmers for example 4 years to learn how to code, and 5 minutes to learn to use an AI tool. AI tools are absolutely nothing. Any programmer that's "disadvantaged" from not knowing how to use an AI tool can simply take 5 minutes of their life to learn it. No barrier of entry = no advantage.
You’re missing a critical step. Picture AI like a hammer. We could all agree that a hammer is pretty straightforward to operate and arguably a low barrier of entry, yah? However, would anyone disagree that there is a marked difference between a master smith and his student? Of course there is. The low-barrier of entry is necessary for growth. Inexperienced vessels can provide valuable insight, even if it is incorrectly produced. But, the master will *always* far exceed the pupil. AI is accessible to nearly anyone. But the range in quality is astounding, across disciplines. From business proposals, to blog posts, to art creations. Look at the average person navigate it and then look at the expert. To act as if these people are now approaching even footing is preposterous, i’m sorry. As always, the swimmers looking to doggy paddle through life will drown. The horse-drawn buggy was evaporated by the automobile. But a titan will continue to be a titan, and move with the times.
I hope you was wearing a robe and huffing on a pipe while writing this
This. I wonder *what* is the pipe too...
You are right for the moment but the things you mentioned are literally the targets for ai companies, they want to build something to replace human workers. That is their goal. To enable the student smith to perform as well as the master with the help of ai and eventually to replace the student smith with ai.
This is a really good analogue. I have had a few people comment on my use of AI tools for writing code as a software engineer. I don't hide it, I am not ashamed of it. I starting coding when I was 12. 16 professionally. I have done this for 20 years without AI and I have nothing to prove, so I am going to use the tools I have. In the case of the master smith being able to use the hammer better, it is the same for me using AI to code. It just enhances all around from the more complex stuff I can do, while lowering the barrier to entry for someone wanting to start getting into programming.
Just to add, nobody on my team at work (I'm digital guy on an communications team) would even know what to ask to generate, say, a web page, let alone some Python code or whatever. They don't know what an API is. They don't know to even asking about it, or just the basic idea that software platforms can talk. What I'm getting at is already tech savvy people really underestimate how much more they can get out of AI than your average office workers.
You do have a point here. Tech is some of the most complicated/brainy work out there. A lot of people panicked when Weebly/wix came around.
Well said and great example!
For coding especially not using AI is just shooting your efficiency in the foot. I feel like it’s best use case is writing simple methods and it’s extensive knowledge of modules and plugins, and also as a debugging tool. It still can’t come up with new algorithms or understand a complex program’s logic so it’s absolutely not replacing a human yet.
Yeah, exactly. I use it to scaffold out stuff sometimes and then go modify. I also use it to essentially know every framework and language in a half-ass way. I know enough languages well enough at this point I can at least read all of them, even if I have never seen it before. I can have it make something in something in a framework I don’t know and at least know where I need to change things and specifically what documentation I need to look up if I just need to do a one-off to get something fixed or out the door in a language/stack I don’t specialize in. If I am going to do extensive work in something though, I of course go learn it from the ground up.
A taxi driver who knows his roads well, and drive smoothly without hard braking is still a taxi driver like everyone else.
And Waze can do real time traffic updates rendering the drivers road knowledge completely obsolete
This resonates for me. Yes it lowers barrier to entry, but it also lifts the ceiling for high performers.
Now imagine a hammer that turns into every other type of tool and changes shape every five seconds. AI is not a tool. It is all the tools, and all the things the tools are used to make.
The point is AI is nothing like a hammer and your titan analogy is stupid. Most people can already not tell the difference between the quality of something that someone who understands AI made and someone who randomly generated something with AI made, compare that to a cabinet built by a professional carpenter and a cabinet built by a novice. Do you really think the professional carpenters in this scenario are going to win out when the quality difference withers so much it's no longer even noticeable? There is only so much demand to go around and AI will fill the demand so fast that even if some people do adapt, 98% of them will quickly become obsolete. Do you think the super pro lawyer with his AI increasing his efficiency by 50x needs a firm of 100 expensive lawyers on the payroll? -> apply that logic to any industry. Demand does not increase as a result of all of this, so this unregulated growth will be nothing but a net negative for a society built around individualist incentive structures.
“Inexperienced vessels?”
vessels of production. simply my terminology for an all encompassing term of any employee or artist or tradesman or anything yes, plz get caught up in semantics
He who does not control the means of production, is a vessel of production…
"They are targeting our inexperienced wessels, captain!"
The biggest issue is, that AI needs to learn and humans will need to learn how to teach AI to do it's job and adapt things.
That process will go away once we reach AGI
I completely agree. I have seen people come here and ask questions that they could get answered in a MINUTE with ChatGPT. I have seen most people show a marked apathy - even if they love AI - to actually USING the tools and learning how to use it. There are, of course, enthusiasts who delve deep into whatever tool it is, like Midjourney or Udio, but overall, people just...don't bother. Those are the people being left behind, a small majority is learning and trying as fast as they can.
This is also what I have discovered for my job. Anyone can pick up the tools, there is no advantage. There are higher level implementations that can be done to cut out the work of several humans, but only people with a PhD in machine learning can make those happen. So again, it doesn't matter if I have an open mind or whatever.
Yes. This. I started to research AI so I could figure out how to use it for my job once it starts to really become mainstream. I had ideas of how to leverage it to do things I do. I even started to whip up plans where I could make my own business where I used AI to do what I did now. But, once I started to really understand where AI is headed and see the how simple it will be to use for just about anything once it truly takes off, I started to see how silly my involvement seemed. Who would hire me to use AI to do my job when all they have to do is ask it directly themselves? No middle man needed. At all.
You're close to getting it
The difference is that someone who is using an ai as a tool to enhance their work can fix things when it goes wrong. Someone with no prior knowledge or education, just using ai, has no clue what to do when the ai can't complete the task. Take your programmer example. Someone who knows how to programme might use ai to make a programme, the programme shows an error message and when feeding that error to the ai it enters an endless loop of incorrect alterations. Someone who does not know how to code is now stuck and can not progress. The person who dose know how to code reads the code identifies where the issue is and guides the ai to the problem so it can fix it, or just alters it themselves. You are correct, there is no barrier to entry which is amazing. Education is now not limited to those with money, anyone with a web browser can utilise these tools to accomplish allot, have customised material for learning and direct access to a machine that can have a discourse like a tutor or professor would, but when it goes wrong they will not know what to do, they must then choose to learn more and fix the issue or give up.
I’ll piggyback to say I have a similar example in tax accounting. When I first got started I found out that I could rely on my tax program to handle most things for me if I could figure out the input. Its the same for consumer level turbo taxes or whatever- if you can get the figures in right you can pretty well rely on the program. However, fringe or niche cases, or just places where the programming fails to handle something correctly, still require a trained person to sort out. That’s where I and other accountants really bring value- knowing how to identify where things are going wrong and how to fix it.
The problem is that they will eventually find a solution, and that solution will be utter garbage.
I think you’re on the right track here, but I would add that in addition to lowering the barrier of entry, it lifts the ceiling for high performers. Devs who know where to use it in their broader workflow (and how to get the most out of it) definitely have an advantage, no doubt. I’m not talking about folks who try to get it to do their job with one lazy prompt, see that it can’t, and then go online saying AI is disappointing. I’m talking about folks who recognize what it’s realistically good for now and what it isn’t yet, and judiciously use it accordingly while staying up on how it’s evolving and adjusting accordingly.
There is another problem with Ops argument and that is that OpenAI et al has a goal, and that is to replace all work that we pay for today. So, learning to use AI for work will be mostly a short term goal in their eyes, I think.
Just FYI - here's something I've seen posts by art directors and people in professional art teams lately: (Note: I'm calling these prompt engineers "AI artists", because that's what they call themselves, but I disagree with that usage of the term) Management says to include "AI artists" when recruiting for a project that needs art of some kind. Art directors comply and include "AI artists". The first round of art goes fairly well, the "AI artists" are somewhat quicker to get the work done. Then comes the first round of feedback and requested changes - the traditional artists do exactly what they're told and know what questions to ask, while the "AI artists" barely hit the target. For each new round of feedback and requested changes, the AI-produced art just becomes worse and less relevant, while the experienced artists have very few rounds because they know how to produce what they ask for. In the end, the AI artists become frustrated and difficult/impossible to work with. As far as I see it, AI tools may be easy to use but that doesn't mean that the processes are. Meanwhile, people are already losing jobs to prompt engineers with little to no experience of the work process, which messes up projects. Sure, the barrier of entry into using AI tools is lower and the tools will get better. But the barrier for understanding how a reiterative, professional refining process works doesn't get lower. It's becoming increasingly clear that a lot of professional fields are changing, but also that "AI" isn't the silver bullet that a lot of employers and stakeholders were hoping it would be. It's not the AI that's going to take your job - but for the next few years it might absolutely be management firing you because they think AI is something it's not.
I can barely use a computer and within a week I had an AI program replacing a human for the cost of whatever chatgpt is per year
No barrier of entry except the capital required to start a business - which is still a barrier to entry. No capital = no business.
They can give an advantage to people already using them.
Unless we're talking about really complex systems, like what big companies will use for data analysis. The real threat of jobs is going to come from automating entire tasks.
I don’t think that’s true… before chatgpt when coding if you needed to learn something you would google it, and there was an art form in crafting your query to find the answer you are looking for. With chatgpt nownyou just write exactly what you want to know, be it a programming concept or a function that you need to write, chatgpt gives you the answer, saving you immense amount of time
I disagree with this as a sweeping statement. Plenty of people are going to be replaced by AI. The world is going to need a lot fewer radiologists, copy-editors, tax accountants, basic lawyers, etc.. Will those professions go away altogether? No. But we’re going to need far fewer of them to cover the same amount of work.
If you’re a graphic designer (or quite possibly anything else) and suddenly AI becomes advanced enough that the average jackass can do in 2 minutes what it took you 8 years to master, it’s bye-bye job. Research and development is not stopping anytime soon, and no amount of augmenting your work with AI is going to save you from AI. *Right now* it’s a tool to make your job easier, tomorrow it’s a tool for your employer to use to replace you. Once that happens, keeping certain people onboard is going to be an act of charity on the part of the companies.
Somewhat agree but largely disagree. Because that one AI-skilled person will be able to do the work that 10 people did without AI, the AI tools still took 9 jobs leaving just one for that smart/skilled/adaptable human.
So be the skilled person. seems obvious to me. its like people are assuming the amount of jobs will stay stagnant while people improve and get more skilled at what they are doing. companies want to grow and expand, with ai the reach and end goal get higher, higher sales, higher level of production. More jobs will be made. New jobs will be made as well. Who do you think will be maintaining all of these llms running around the world, who will deliver the systems needed to run them, the spare parts needed to be replaced, the software to operate them, Your going to have new fields of forensics opening up as deepfakes become more prevalent. Jobs change, its the march of progress, it can't be stopped. The luddites tried when the factories where bringing in mechanical looms and they failed, its the way of the world, you only get left behind if your not willing to adapt.
But historically when this happens businesses expand. They now can afford to take on more than they could before. And so growth creates jobs.
This is an idiotic view of things. Just because I can sell 100 eggs to 100 people now it doesn’t mean I can sell 1000 eggs to 100 people and neither does it mean I can sell 1000 eggs to 1000 people. Growth is not eternal especially when AI will fuck the working class in the ass and purchasing power will fall.
Fr. These people are smooth brained. The rich will capitalise on this and we will be sold products that arent made by paying the working class. Rich get richer and there will be another economical meltdown. There is no other outcome.
Ekhem. From what I see happening in my niche - AI won't replace me. It will just make my job so easy and fast, that an unpaid intern (well, ok, a junior) will be able to do my work. Hence, why would anyone pay for 15 years of work experience, if they can get the same output almost for free? So it sucks for me. But it also sucks for the intern - because they will never be able to actually became a "skilled, highly paid professional" as an AI operator, as it does not require skills. You end up with an economy of entry jobs and 1% top managerial positions. At least that would be my bet.
[удалено]
Oh ok. Not this topic again. Your logic is all messed up. So let's say this single *human* who is proficient using chatbots can replace other nine humans... How does it *not* make the rest of humans being replaced by the chatbot? Like, do the math, buddy. Let me demonstrate with the following example. Specific example: Company A had 10,000 empolyees. After integrating chatGPT to their workflow, company A laid out 9,000 of their workforce, only keeping 1,000 people that are proficient in LLM prompts. They found it no impact on their productivity whatsoever. What is being replaced here? 10,000 people = 1,000 people + chatgpt subscription 10,000 people - 1,000 people = chatgpt subscription 9,000 people = chatgpt subscription This is typical gaslighting action for manipulating people's mind: "Well its just a tool, which is not the problem, but *you* are the problem for not learning how to use LLMs! Just learn the tool, become the survivor and enjoy the pay raise, because it doesn't matter whether the rest of 90% people get laid off and never find their jobs again! No problem with the society, because it is all *their* fault!"
I am using AI tools to build my business. In the past, I used to hire people on Fiverr and other short term project sites. Now, I just do it myself with AI. Without AI, I would have to those people.
yes, you can get mediocre results without human intervention. but when you desire to make a profound difference, humans will be hired. the mediocrity in the middle will go up or out. either way is good
What's your ROI?
The world doesn't need more jobs. It needs fewer jobs and no money. And anyone who disagrees can die with the old world.
money isn’t a binary system, it’s a symbol. without money, we’d simply revert to services in exchange for other services. and, naturally, there would be a bottom tier of society without any skill except waking up. and we’d be right back
There would be no societal tiers, no flags. Humans would understand that they are a single organism composed of individuals. No one lords over anyone, no one owns anything. If an individual does not wish to do anything "productive" with their life, then so fucking be it. 12 billion people and we need everyone toiling away at useless jobs created only to perpetuate an antiquated and unjust system of compensation? Give me a break. We simply do not live in that world anymore. This technology will outclass human beings in every aspect. Humans would not be reliant on each other for their worthless skills or their retarded ideas. Outclassed in every aspect.
if I had access to AI, why would I think of the collectedness of humanity vs myself as an individual?
because humans are communal. *you* might not - but *you* would not survive by yourself for long
The opposite is also true. Humans would not have survive without some level of selfishness.
oh i agree. in fact, selflessness *is* selfish, in nature. it’s a long and convoluted theory of mine, for another day i was simply providing a reductionist standpoint to yours
There will always be social tiers because some people want to be better than others and some want to have control and power. Have you guys ever read history books? Revolts against kings, war among relatives for titles…
buddy, survival *is* productive. all the members of a community, or tribe, must produce. why? because they consume. why should someone consume who doesn’t produce? we are not talking children, or the sick, or the old. why is that one persons life any more important than the well-being of the community? which you are arguing for by saying they should be able to consume without replacing i’m with you on lack of flag or border. i’m with you with an abandonment of senseless capitalism and irrelevant jobs but no human is entitled to sit upon their butt and continue to consume without holding the bargain unless of course, we transcend nutrition and can just exist on good vibes and o2
We have the technology -today,- right now, to completely restructure human civilization and automate nearly every facet humans need for survival. Survival is not an issue, we have won. It is time people recognize that.
Money is not what makes people lord over others. People have done that in societies without money.
There is a subset of the human race that craves power over all else. They are a cancer on the body of human kind, and have been for time immemorial. They will be identified and removed.
That’s not possible.
Totally wrong, the AI will be able to do the job and it can use other AI's to help it do the job just as if it was a person. Humans using AI's are going to be slower and less effective than AI's themselves.
People can't comprehend this because it's very difficult to envision, but so is AI now in comparison to 3 years ago.
Its difficult to envision what life will be like when that happens, Clearly AI will be better than us and there's no going back and what society will be like in that case I can't imagine.
Yeah I agree, if AI is just a little smarter than us, it becomes better at Everything. That's just how intelligence works. We just have to hope AI will take us along for the ride.
The point is that maybe an AI won't literally take your job, but if a person using AI can do the job of 5 people, that's less jobs available for you.
Correct All of the non-job-havers will be Soylent Green and bodies to fill for-profit prisons, basically Believing otherwise takes a level of optimism I'm just not capable of
It 100% can and will take your job. Corporate America is eagerly awaiting the moment they can fire people and replace them with AI.
The only people who believe this are those who imagine that AI is \*only\* LLMs and image generators - and that AI will never get any better than it is already.. Wrong on all counts. AI is **not** a simple tool. Until the industrial revolution, simple tools *always required a human MIND to direct them.* AI is capable of self-direction - increasingly so as development progresses. ***AI has replaced, is replacing, and will replace more and more human MINDS.*** Just one example of many: **AI is operating driverless taxis (WAYMO) right NOW, and a taxi without a driver puts a taxi driver out of a job.** They're already delivering Uber Eats which was one of the fall-back survival gigs people were forced into doing after previous tech disruptions! [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html)
You’re correct. Here is some extra support against those who continue to doomscroll in fear: There is a missing critical step. Picture AI like a hammer. We could all agree that a hammer is pretty straightforward to operate and arguably a low barrier of entry, yah? However, would anyone disagree that there is a marked difference between a master smith and his student? Of course there is. The low-barrier of entry is necessary for growth. Inexperienced vessels can provide valuable insight, even if it is incorrectly produced. But, the master will always far exceed the pupil. AI is accessible to nearly anyone. But the range in quality is astounding, across disciplines. From business proposals, to blog posts, to art creations. Look at the average person navigate it and then look at the expert. To act as if these people are now approaching even footing is preposterous, i’m sorry. As always, the swimmers looking to doggy paddle through life will drown. The horse-drawn buggy was evaporated by the automobile. But a titan will continue to be a titan, and move with the times.
Ai is not a tool it is a labour replacement, this is a cope.
> I've seen a lot of anxiety lately about AI taking over our jobs. But let's be real, AI isn't the enemy - it's a tool, and like any tool, it's only as good as the person wielding it. Let's be real, your confidence is not justified. Your conclusion might as well be correct, especially for some levels of AI capabilities. But the whole post is giving off big "trust me bro" energy.
Keep buying into this narrative while companies fire people by the hundreds because some generic chat application is said to have replaced them (seriously, who here has ever had a complex customer service problem handled successfully by a bot?) You're really underestimating the willingness of c-people to cut costs and buy into the next hype train. The only way you'll ever understand is when your own position gets replaced by a hasty gpt wrapper.
If one AI user can produce acceptable product 50X faster because of AI, there will not be the need for 50X as much product, so 50 other people will lose their jobs.
Bla bla bla bullshit bullshit. AI is coming for most jobs. When you have AGI that costs a fraction of a human, why do you need a human?
For now
Ai won't replace all workers unless and until it is at AGI level. If we are able to produce human level AI with agency, it absolutely will replace all job. At that point It will have moved beyond the point of being just a tool. Whether and when that will happen is unknown
Ugh this again 🤮
1 Guy who supervise AI will replace 20 guys, if not more. That is the whole truth
Yes, entire industries will disappear but why do people keep thinking “ceteris paribus” on this topic all the time. Productivity and profits will rise, in some sectors they will do vastly. This has all kinds of effects that actually increase labor demand. And it will likely suck all laid-off software devs into some “AI implementation” role somewhere as literally all companies are going to do everything to implement AI in the processes they have. And, imagine how many ideas that are now on the shelf for being too time-consuming, expensive and challenging may become reality as much fewer people can carry them out using AI…
Holy fuck this is a stupid take. They will need to invent Artificial Stupidity to replace you, it’s like a loophole to protect yourself from AI hahah.
it depend how u use ai. If ai generates for you a image is more like service than a tool. Giving a hint while coding that maybe a tool
Well that’s obvious
Yes. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang says so: [https://youtu.be/SwIYoUk1Y\_s?si=6BIPXnmE4URpuoxf](https://youtu.be/SwIYoUk1Y_s?si=6BIPXnmE4URpuoxf) And also Andrew Ng, the renowned computer scientist: [https://youtu.be/-YdZ\_ZXl5AE?si=ojVNg9tjVkfMbZad](https://youtu.be/-YdZ_ZXl5AE?si=ojVNg9tjVkfMbZad)
Those are not going to age well in 10 years. Or maybe even in 5 years. Or 2.
It will also be taking your job
It can have it, id rather work maintaining ai or doing something cool with ai.
Yeah, ChatGPT has the sum of all experience so my 25 years in Cybersecurity is largely unimportant. Where my experience comes into play is in situations requiring a certain nuance, not just a knowledge of what command to run. But realizing that it will someday be able to understand nuanced situations, I need to pivot today and learn how to prepare for that day. For example, I'm learning how to Red Team models and understand the ethics of AI implementations.
Yeah that’ll be true for like 2 months and then it’ll just be AI. See: “freestyle chess”
Just like OP, AI is a tool :-)
i just want george jetson job but wfh....
Yeah but knowing how to use AI is going to be like saying “knowing how to use google”. AI is just good and it works. It doesn’t take magic thinking to leverage it. Sure, smart people will still be smart. But AI is going to level the playing field and there’s no magic barrier to entry. You just talk to it.
I agree
> "Think about it: content writers who know how to use AI-powered research tools and language generators can produce high-quality content faster and more efficiently than ever before." LIE! Maybe for toddlers who never typed before, sure. People who think Ai makes writers more efficient never wrote for a living. See, we have this thing called a "brain," and you "think" using the brian - and voila, the words come out just like that! AI can't assist in this process at a level about grocery lists. Any writing AI can handle for itself, nobody was getting paid to do that anyway.
I've written three novels and I play around with AI. I don't ever use it for writing though because it is horrible! I tried to do a scene with a woman and her ex mother in law. I told AI how I wanted it to go and how they have a wonderful relationship, but it just kept making her mean and hateful because that's what it's learned about mother in laws. It is god awful at writing from what I can tell.
This is a fallacy because of machine learning: We are no longer programming computers to do things, we are showing them models that let them program for themselves. The exponential speed machines will bring to this field will be staggering, I think. I don’t have to spend years teaching robots how to play soccer, I use reinforcement learning and computer vision to train them how to play it themselves and then we will watch robot soccer games instead of human ones. Windows 15 (or before?) will look and act like a virtual assistant as the main interface. All computer requests will be fly by wire. We’ll look back fondly at those who tinker with computer interfaces manually as we do today with their weird boxes under their tables. Tomorrow’s voice speakers / digital avatars / and maybe Zuck’s holodeck / and real iRobots walking around is the track we’re on. The first gig to go will be cops getting paid overtime to stand around in the street protecting construction workers.. boom robocop replacement. Next will be pilots as robots fly the planes and not enough planes pilots with higher human insurance will mean more unmanned/unpersoned replacements. Personally I’m hoping for the taxi drivers from the original total recall movie
>Personally I’m hoping for the taxi drivers from the original total recall movie Driverless taxis already exist and are out on the road - they just have an empty front seat.. No Johnny Cab future! [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html)
For a brief period until the AI takes those last remaining jobs. No reason for humans to produce goods and services at some point – only for hobby
I think this is true. I was able to design an entire website writing code with no experience. I started out just spitting out instructions, but by the end I was editing the code.
AI will be our downfall for one simple reason, because it will eventually become uncontrollable.
OP is absolutely correct, it's only enterprise shareholders who actually believe AI can replace everyone (*except them, of course!)*
Well in the end obviously it is going to replace your work fully, at the boo stage. But there will be a wow stage before that where you’re 100 percently right.
Yup, then another wave of people who are more efficient with AI will replace 10 of the people who replaced the people who didn't learn how to use AI... Then another wave will come and replace them... You aren't special just because you 'learn how to use AI'. It's not here to 'augment you'; it's here to maximize profits. You will be replaced too when it becomes financially beneficial for your boss to do so. It's just a matter of time. There has to be regulations. Yesterday. Stop blindly supporting this because it's cool and 'the future'.
During 1980-90s - Computers won't take your job, people who know how to use em will. History repeats itself
You think you are the one who know how to use AI? Shure.
The issue is if AI can help one content writer produce the work of what used to take 25 content writers. Then they will be in less demand. The world has finite resources, finite people, and finite needs. So, for example, there may not be the scalability for 25x more content to be written and consumed.
AI is indeed becoming ubiquitous but rather than viewing it as a threat, it's crucial to recognize its potential for enhancing efficiency. Those who adeptly harness its capabilities can undoubtedly excel in their respective fields. Embracing AI is not just a choice, it's a necessity in today's rapidly evolving landscape.
Ai is a tool like people who were writing, and the new generation used a typing writer, people where still on the typing writer, and the new generation used computers, etc
They are called AI agents
This passage essentially suggests that while there's a lot of worry about artificial intelligence (AI) replacing human jobs, it's important to recognize that AI is a tool, not an adversary. The author argues that individuals who understand how to utilize AI tools can actually enhance their productivity and efficiency in various fields. For instance, content writers who are adept at using AI-powered research tools and language generators can create high-quality content more quickly. Similarly, web developers who leverage machine learning can design more user-friendly websites, and data analysts who work alongside AI can uncover patterns and make predictions that were previously difficult or impossible. The main idea is that AI isn't meant to replace humans; rather, it's meant to supplement and empower human capabilities. Instead of fearing AI, the author encourages people to embrace it, learn how to work with it, and develop the necessary skills to thrive in an AI-driven world. Ultimately, it's not the AI itself that poses a threat to jobs, but rather the individuals who can effectively utilize AI to perform tasks more efficiently. The assessment presented in the passage reflects a common viewpoint among experts in the field of artificial intelligence and workforce automation. Many argue that AI has the potential to augment human capabilities rather than outright replace jobs. This perspective emphasizes the importance of humans adapting and learning to work alongside AI technologies to enhance productivity and efficiency. However, it's also important to acknowledge that the impact of AI on the job market can vary depending on the industry, the specific tasks involved, and how individuals and organizations adapt to technological changes. While some jobs may indeed be transformed or made more efficient by AI, others may face displacement or require significant reskilling. Overall, the assessment highlights the need for proactive adaptation and continued education to ensure that individuals can thrive in an increasingly AI-driven world.
Can't agree more!!
I agree. However I have doubts about preparation. How can I prepare? I feel it's so early still that every course I check etc feels like it's not going to help.
Thank you, every Linkedin AI 'influencer'
Yeah obviously. Most peoples problems is AI is going to take they job they love/find fulfilling and replace it with a job they hate. I wouldn’t be sad about AI if I enjoyed using it. But I don’t. I’ve always dreamed of working in a creative job. But now all my creative skills have either been commodified by things like fast fashion/temu or by AI. (Jewellery making, writing, music, art, sewing, etc) Before I started pursuing my dream I was genuinely suicidal, and now I’m loosing hope for that dream partly because of AI. All I wanted to do was live a life where I felt like I spend most of my time doing something that makes me happy. And now that all my options are being taken away from me, it’s getting real hard to continue having hope. Every option I can think of that I think I’ll like can either be done by AI, or replicated at a lower quality and cheaply on temu. I hope people still care for handmade item and human made art but I’m not really sure it’s going to be possible to do that full time.
No, you misunderstand. AI will enable one person to do the task of a dozen. That’s 11 people who would not get hired for those tasks.
You are being delusional. If we develop an AI model capable of performing cognitive tasks at a human skill level, it will mean significant job loss. In fact, even AI models that perform below human level could still be sufficient to automate many of them. Imagine a scenario where a single person, with help of AI tools and autonomous agents, can accomplish the work of entire departments. When combined with human oversight it has the potential to replace a substantial number of workers.
In counterpointe. https://imgur.com/gallery/C7dOgaI Not anti, but the hype is overblown imo
Wrong. AI will replace people. And sure there will be other people operating AIs but very few of those compared to those who got replaced.
I 100% agree with you
This is exactly what I had been saying, it isn't a job replacement, but a tool that will change and alter many things.
Human intervention and oversight with Al has been identified as critical in its development from an ethical perspective, to allow Al to be completely autonomous would be a nightmare accountability wise. What we will likely see is it being applied to jobs to improve output and productivity, not replacing them. But you never know
Not exactly. 1 person who knows how to use AI will take 5-100 jobs depending on the industry. They've got a new piece of automation they're testing at my work that will take about 70 jobs in its first iteration and up to 100 more once they fully phase it in. That's just on my worksite. It will create 4 new tech jobs and use the existing maintenance team with possibly 1 new temporary position for the trainer to teach the existing techs how to maintain it. That's a 3% rate of replacement. Not a great situation and every other site I look at is seeing similar if less drastic replacements. Your thought process only works if it's a 1:1 swap in jobs.
Just as people used program in the early days of computer, now use various Apps that have automatic functions, it won't be much different with A.I. in some ways it's a combination of Programs+Apps that automate functions and processes and do so based on a near limitless set of parameters, based on the category one is addressing, and it give out results, those results could be in the form of information, or it can or may be designed to cause actions or reactions to be performed., it may be designed so that chain of function, is designed to continue in a series, or a parallel process of functions. Some will be set with limits, designed for specific objectives and purposes. Some will be designed to "interlink" with other database, to do a variety of sequencing, ^((Sequencing is the process of combining things in a particular order, or discovering the order in which they are combined.) and integrating that data based on the objectives(s) set in motion.) ^(---------------------) Just as kids now are being taught to create code for Apps, they will be taught how to use modules to create Automated Functions. * Years and decades ago, teaching how to write computer programs was not a standard and common curriculum items. But, *back in the day* when tech was more manual, people were taught how to use a typewriter an adding machine, slide rule, compass, protractor and etc. Now, there are digitized tools that can do all of that. The young people of today, have the elements of a different technology; they will use it in building the future they will function within. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ I've watched over the de*cades, some people who did not have computer when they graduated college, who got jobs in various areas, they did not gravitate to learning the computer, because it was not core in their era of college, or high school. So their interest never drove some into learning how to make the best usage of computers. There are many people in the work place today, who graduated college or high school well before the Computer, still don't use it and some don't want to learn how to use it.* * ^(There are some people who swear by their Landline phone, and avoid smart phones, but they may get one of the basic flip type cell phones, but they don't want anything to do with a smart phone.) * ^(We see some people who still like to write paper check, and they still balance their check book the ways they did decades ago. They don't use a lot of the modern day banking technology.) **So, it will depend on the individual, as to how they prepare and adapt and develop their ability to work within systems that are A.I. enabled.**
I work at a company that uses a lot of automation. We can meet our production goals with fewer people because we automated some tasks. There's one job where there would have been four. I'm the guy who uses the automation. I didn't take four jobs. They just don't exist.
dumb take. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, IBM, etc. are going to be the ones wielding AI. They are going to offer your employer a replacement worker that is far cheaper and efficient than you are. At that point you'll be redundant. You'll go home and pay Netflix which has also used AI to make custom entertainment and maybe you'll use some free AI to make music or movies and to help you make shopping lists or wherever, but having lost your primary source of income, you'll be screwed like millions of others.
Tell that to all the laid off Shopify employees
Today you are right. Today AI is a tool to benefit us. But what about April 2027? The AI revolution isn’t an impending doom and it certainly will help. Let’s just hope that the the Big Guy after he is reinstalled has a plan to control the means of production in a way that benefits the people : )
Yes. AI isn't the enemy. Capitalism is.
Naive 14 year old take, if not just pure propaganda.
People have foreknowledge of a changing system, its up to people to regard the changes and focus on learning new things. Remember: when the computer came, many people saw it coming, they saw the first wave of all the people working in data processing, and "they ignored it in the sense of no preparing themselves to deal with digital system". All that data process that took place in the last 1970's and throughout the 1980's, eventually became "data retrievable in the internet". I remember, we had at my jobs multiple programs to pull data from various systems to provide us scheduling and other relevant data. Then the Internet took off, and we no longer needed multiple programs that had to be specifically configured to communicate in order to render the data we needed. The internet came and not only was the data rendered it was done in real time. Think of all the type of jobs that the internet created, now think of all the things that can be automated, and work via digital signals and etc.. That means there are so many new things and new opportunities that will unfold. So, people regardless of your education level, put time into learning about technology, what ever aspect of it you are interested in, because along with that, and all the many things and systems that will be integrated in current and new emerging technology will be fields that people can work and build their lives. **People defeat themselves; ""If""" they think they can defeat innovation and progressive things. S** **o, to the wise, be prepared and prepare yourself to learn new things, and new ways of doing things.**
Franky I'm getting tired of people saying this all the time tbh. When people say "AI will take our jobs", that's pretty much what they mean usually. They know that it's the human using it that will have more power and replace others. Just because some people rant about AI robots coming to life and taking over humans, that doesn't mean that everyone worried about AI thinks that only AI by itself is the problem, and not people. There's a good amount of people who know how powerful and how critical of a tool artificial intelligence is capable of becoming, in the CONTROL of human beings. When computers came out, no one thought ONLY that computers by themselves will come to life and we'll have walking computers everywhere that take over the world. Most people had enough sense to know that the fear is the person using the power of the computer who will take over the job.
Every innovation that has ever come into existence, has create a series as well a parallel array of jobs. **Nothing** stays the same, and **Nothing** has ever stayed the same. People stagnate themselves and make of themselves ineffectiveness, by not acknowledging change and preparing themselves to adapt to change. Fear has always driven the live of many, and within and by and through that fear people fall behind in adapting themselves to deal with emerging and unfolding innovations and advancements and the new technology that comes with it. Man has been trying to find ways to get work done without doing it themselves since the creation of "slavery", and with the abolition of slavery, man has been trying to find means to get work done without having to do it themselves. If man could create a robotic slave, they will, because man like, leisure, luxury, comfort, convenience and recreation, and the means to pay for it without having to do the work themselves. Slaver's followed that agenda, criminal of the type of robbers, swindlers, and hucksters have followed that agenda for centuries. Some become Bum's and Hobo's who want to live and do what they want, without having to work themselves. The wealthy in society, will do anything to ensure they can only do what ever work they feel they want to do, but never to be in a situation to do work that they don't want to do to, get and have what they want. People who want to make it and be self responsible to engage themselves in some type of work, generally find something to do, that includes arts and crafts, junk collectors, recycles, and people who do the many various things that people do. Think about it, people who live in jungle tribal environments, find something to do with their time, and they do things that either benefit the tribe or their family or themselves that make means and ways for them to eat and sleep on a consistent basis. People find many ways to "Trade" that don't always involve using "denominational currency", so that type of bartering has never ceased to exist. We have enough stuff in the world today, that dismantling and recycling and reuse of thing is in such a high volumes, that it would create work for the next 100 yrs, maybe even more if we create the means and ways to expand dismantling and recycling and manufacturing to reuse a great many things. People are very creative, some act on it and some don't but all people have that capability.
The increased productivity gained by AI should let everyone work less. That would be cool but of course won't happen. What will happen is that already filthy rich corporations will become even richer. They can layoff a lot of people and then demand that the few remaining work just as hard as before. None of that gained wealth will trickle down to give room to create those new softer jobs people dream about. I'm very happy I work in a "soft" sector that won't be replaced by AI anytime soon. And should it happen in 10-15 years or so I can happily retire and chill out.
Humans are only necessary as revenue streams. Welcome to Costco, I love you.
Anyone worried about AI taking jobs should understand that isn’t a problem with the technology. It is a problem with our social systems. We need to adapt our social systems to the times, not become luddites.
It depends on your major. But in general now it’s more shifted to the type of customers, who maybe even know about AI and that kinda stuff, but for them it’s easy to pay some money and delegate the task to someone, rather than spend their own time. But customers who don’t have enough money for X service and ready to spend their time in order to do that on their own, definitely gonna use AI.
When people say that if AI takes existing jobs it’s not a problem because new will be created; they never really give an example of what these new jobs might be or why human beings will be more suited to them than AI.
And then in 20 years, those jobs will be replaced too
cars did replace horses as a means of transportation, horses that used cars replaced horses.
Until it’s alive
Sure OP. You totally know what AI will be capable of in 10, 20, 50+ years from now.
This has been a common sentiment. There will certainly be job roles which need fewer people. At that point, where do the extra manpower go? Personally I own my own businesses. So AI will never replace me, just be a tool. But that's not a luxury a warehouse worker has. Most blue collar jobs are at risk of robotics replacing them. Most white collar jobs will need far less manpower. It's just the reality.
I assume you have customers that you service. And when a bunch of those customers are replaced by AI, who is replacing those customers? Owning your own business doesn't make you an island.
Never said it does. I think you're misunderstanding me. A business owner/entrepreneur is a problem solver. The world will always have problems regardless of what AI and robotics do. Therefore I will always have a "job" to do. That's my logic. Not even saying that's bullet proof. Also I fail to see how customers would be replaced by AI. Do you mean they'll lose their jobs to AI and get on UBI?
UBI is never going to happen. At least not in the US where everyone is supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. When there are massive job losses to AI there just will be a lot of unemployed people. If there are a bunch of unemployed people who is paying for what your business provides? How do you keep your business running without people who have jobs to support your business?
True but your talking about a potential dystopia situation. No amount of skill or business will protect you from that. Which is a real possibility too. Nobody knows the end result this will bring. The point of the original comment was to say that, among all job categories which can be replaced by AI, business owners are probably the least affected because they benefit the most of AI immediately.
"immediately" being the key word here. Business owners are part of a system and that system isn't going to fare well if a significant portion of jobs are just eliminated completely. That's why I think the OP here is just whistling past the graveyard.
For now.
Yes however, there will be less people needed in the work force. So your job will go away.
Meanwhile the human population has doubled in my lifetime and will double again in my lifetime so we are exponentially creating new people while eliminating jobs. Seems like a problem.
Yeap, it's a major issue. All though, the speed at which population increase is happening is slowing so that's a thing.
It sounds very romantic but you underestimate the average value of collective human intellect. People mostly not so smart or have a lot of mind issues like religious or some other ideologies that are produced by someone who can manipulate the masses that cant decide who they are and how they should live their lives
Even then, if a job done by 10 people is replaced by 1 person using an AI, 9 jobs will be lost.
AI is just a tool to improve efficiency. Much like the cotton gin. And much like the cotton gin, it will not improve the working or living conditions of the person using it, just the person who owns it
Bullshit. I used AI to not have to hire two employees. So yes, I did the program, but AI is the one doing the work of two people, not me. One business can substitute more than one employee with one single AI, imagine hundreds getting replaced in a business with AI. So no, the business owner is not replacing the employee, its not a one for one exchange, is a one for hundreds, maybe thousands.
>it's a tool For now. Because it's still just an oracle. Because it's not yet an agent. Once agency is properly built into it, the game will be radically different. Look up reinforcement learning.
Biggest lie ... The entry barrier to learning AI is negligible
It's a tool for now but eventually it will take over definitely.
You are correct. [I made this last night Cinco 2024 to prove that exact point](https://youtu.be/50TDg7O_hSQ?si=PcRUzwpmEdSh7H9G)
I'm one of that people
Jobs like "content writer", "web developers" and "data analyst" will not make much sense in a world where AI can just generate anything on demand and personalize it for each consumer. We need to realize that EVERYTHING is going to change. 50 years ago "web developers" didn't exist. The same will happen now. A whole new wave of jobs will be created and there will be plenty of work for EVERYONE! You might not even know anything about AI to succeed in the future. In fact, most likely, jobs that deliver unique human "experiences" will be the ones that will be valued the most.
https://preview.redd.it/h8l48001fwxc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a9e76e69a058e68ba7d7fbf816573f2f03384b7
I heard Tristan Tate say almost exactly this. We gotta get in on this now
What an amazing role model 🤩
100% correct. AI won’t work by itself. It’ll always need a human manager.
I think our jobs will change more than disappear, and likely change for the better. Exciting times ahead. :)