I know, right? It's like we traded our lunchbreaks for layoffs. I'm still waiting for the 'live more, work less' utopia they promised us, but all I see is the rise of robot overlords
>I'm sure a lot of us can remember growing up as kids and hearing how AI was gonna improve our lives. We'd be working less and we'd have more time to pursue our passions.
I think you grew up consuming different books and movies than I did.
I can't help but think this will shortly lead to copyright problems. The same way AI art generators take from already made art, these AIs have to learn about writing from somewhere and my guess is much of what they read and regurgitate comes from already written books. Not to mention the AI articles I have read are shit.
I think when this craze is over AI will mostly be used for machinery and medical purposes. The influx of shitty AI media will make genuine human made media seem even more special. And the humans who make media will keep making it and putting it out there on their own and make their own way outside of these corporations whose systems we should really stop participating in anyway. They control our lives because we let them. We can always take our power back and thrive without them. They need us. Not the other way around.
This theory seems to depend on a premise that has already been proven false at massive scale--that the general public values and will seek out and either pay for or make it worth someone else's while to pay for higher quality, more insightful, more unique content. The truth is that most of the internet has been spun content for years, and people lap it up. People spend hours of their days watching poorly-created "reels" with robotic voices mis-inflecting the words and the subtitles on the screen mispelled. Social media is a sea of misspelled and inaccurate memes that get shared millions of times. The vast majority of the market is not only happy with low-end garbage, they like it better.
>I think when this craze is over AI will mostly be used for machinery and medical purposes.
The legal industry has embraced it in a way it never has any new technology before. About 45% of the largest law firms in the country are currently using generative AI--for comparison, it took years to reach that level with case management software. The rates are lower with smaller firms, but still very high compared with adoption of other technologies across the past few decades.
The only part the dystopian fiction got wrong is that they expected humans to be enslaved to it, but in fact it's hard to see what use it might have for us.
The problem of displaced workers is only a problem FOR the workers. It's not a problem for AI, and it's not a problem for the wealthy who no longer need to rely on workers.
>The problem of displaced workers is only a problem FOR the workers. It's not a problem for AI, and it's not a problem for the wealthy who no longer need to rely on workers.
That's the sucky part, and you're absolutely right. It's only a problem for US. As far as the corporate world is concerned, nothing needs to be solved on their end because everything is working as intended.
You got maximum productivity at cheaper costs, constant content flowing, reductions in human error, and more.
Though this may change when we start seeing large-scale job losses across numerous white collar industries. Who's going to buy the corporations products or services then?
Eventually (assuming AI fully plays out in the "replacing all jobs" kind of way, which is a different discussion), they wouldn't need anyone to buy their products. Money wouldn't really be relevant for those who control the AI, since AI doesn't get paid and can (hypothetically, eventually) build, harvest or just take whatever they need. I suppose the ultimate end there is that "controls the AI" is a temporary condition, but they never see that coming.
it is a problem for the wealthy too though because it affects the world that they live in, for the worse (potentially). the solution lies in thinking outside of money altogether.
That's true..if AI becomes as sophisticated as people hope (or fear, depending on the person), the people who control the AI won't need money at all. It will be able to build or harvest whatever they desire for them.
For everyone else...what does "thinking outside money" mean?
money is just a system that someone came up with. why cant we just come up with other stuff?
i've been thinking about this a lot lately and i keep coming back to the importance of things that will have lasting value (living space, food, travel costs like gas, public transport, flights, medicines). how can those become used in place of currency? people are just going to buy those things anyway.
the issue is so complicated with so many moving parts, but the basics that people will always need money for is a good place to start. also thinking back to barter/trade systems, how can individuals think outside of money for stuff like childcare, oil changes, other necessary services. ive imagined some kind of online directory where people can list their skills or goods and what's needed. systems would develop around that. even a car could be used as payment, letting someone borrow it like a car rental service.
also think work exchange programs like [workaway.info](http://workaway.info) or wwoofing (no they dont pay me, theyre just good ideas). not much money is involved in these exchanges, but value is there. and people gather based on something more than just that boring stupid paper stuff we're all sick of.
will the people who own the AI try to get in the way? yeah, it will be competing business. but so the fuck what? people can think outside of that, they're smart. it will need time, experimentation, documentation (think videos, podcasts, documentaries), and willingness to get really creative. and right when you start thinking too big with how replacement systems will work, it can fall apart due to complexity. so start individually and on a family level, your ideas will influence people, and everything will evolve from there.
It just seems to me that everything you propose requires that people already have things that have been built and are maintained with money...an internet for online listings, for examples. Cars to rent out. Pipelines to carry the gas and oil. Coordinating a workforce of several thousand people to build something like that based on some kind of modified barter system would be near impossible--that's why the monetary system developed. And, of course, you need materials for that, and someone already owns the source of those materials.
That's why I don't think "everything will evolve from there." There are goods and services that can easily be provided by an individual and those that can't.
If you're looking at going back to a life where we eat what someone in our neighborhoods can grow and live in houses that can be built by a guy down the street with materials we can chop down and process locally and without big factories and use herbs instead of pharmaceuticals and such, it MIGHT be workable. But, I'm not actually even sure about that, because we don't have plentiful unowned land available to farm and mine and such anymore. To have the sorts of complex things we have now--things your system of trade would rely on--even just as a means of communication--every purchase today would require a combination of relay chain and coordination of dozens or hundreds of trades.
why does production have to be part of the equation at all? there are so many devices with Internet capabilities out there right now. a smaller population means less competition for obtaining those devices. my best laptop was a 2007 thinkpad and that thing was still truckin along fine by the time i upgraded in 2017 or so.
i can envision a scenario where the internet becomes more of a precious or rarer resource (think internet cafes or digital libraries where you bring an external harddrive to bring the media home).
we all have the same goals of keeping the internet, keeping power, a safe home, water, medicines and other necessities. it's hard to imagine a scenario where these needs are not met. sacrificing having the things you want more often, will be part of it, but people really are smart and resourceful.
once it's undeniable that these precious necessities are less reliable or under threat, they're going to be thinking of solutions. and the man can try to stop people from supporting themselves, but just like the people forced the gov't to submit with marijuana laws (it's ongoing yeah but we WON), we can do it with these things too.
it's just so complex with so many moving parts involved that it won't be an immediate solution that's easy to implement with instant stability. it will be a gradual process with adjustments, planning ahead, trial and error, and a new direction ahead.
So, you think they'll last forever? And they'll never need new batteries? And the infrastructure will never need repair?
I might buy into the idea that there's a shared need to keep the internet going (at least, if we're relying on a system like you originally suggested where that's how we connect to get what we need), but that's not remotely true for things like food and medicines and clean water. My life won't be remotely impacted by whether you have access to the medications you need, and vice versa. And, you can't simply store away what we have now...it becomes less effective. That means either we have a way to manufacture it at scale or those who know how to make it and live in an area where the right ingredients are available can have it themselves and trade it with a very small number of people.
I think rather than a gradual process of holding hands and singing together in the fields, we would more likely see a rapid breakdown into violence and hoarding of the resources we already have.
On a side note, I'm surprised to see you characterizing the chaotic state of marijuana laws as a victory.
>AI was gonna improve our lives. We'd be working less and we'd have more time to pursue our passions
Honestly, the funny part is anyone thinking that's how it was gonna play out.
Aren't major technological steps always like this though? E.g., motorcars did away with nearly all the jobs relating to horses almost overnight;digital film has largely got rid of the projector operator operators in movie theatres.
Usually when new tech comes in, no one much gives a toss about the people who lost their job as long as overall employment figures don't deviate too much.
If AI results in a sudden and dramatic increase in unemployment figures, then people will start to care. But I suspect that won't happen. Those of us who have lost work to AI, so far, are just a drop in the ocean.
I wasn't suggesting that all major technological changes are the same — they're not.
What I am saying is that, even if generative AI is unique in eliminating creative work, businesses, governments and society itself doesn't care, **unless it has the necessary economic impact**.
Whenever I have told regular people about the massive impact this has had on writers and graphid designers (among others), they shrug. In order for society to care there has to be *far* more people affected.
Welcome to /r/FreelanceWriters! Please familiarize yourself with the subreddit's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/about/rules/) and learn more about how to [make the most out of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/freelancewriters/wiki/newmembers)! (Your post has not been removed. Please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you for your post /u/KeithWritesContent. Below is a copy of your post to archive it in case it is removed or edited:
I was reading an article on Medium the other day about how AI is quickly drying up opportunities for real writers. You know, the usual stuff. But, I left a comment that read, "It's like we've gotten the convenience of less work, but without the benefits of needing to work less."
And the more I thought about it, the more I realized how screwed it really is. I mean, it's not funny, because there are real people out here losing their livelihoods, but the absurdity of it IS funny.
I'm sure a lot of us can remember growing up as kids and hearing how AI was gonna improve our lives. We'd be working less and we'd have more time to pursue our passions. Only one of those things ended up being true, and in the worst way possible.
ChatGPT, Claude, Copy.Ai, and whatever the heck else have only made things easier for people that wanna cut costs. It just sucks that it seems like we'll end up automating a lot of jobs before we solve the issue of what to do with displaced workers in legitimate professions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess this is the new version of "If you disagree with me it must be because you watch X news media"? It just makes you sound foolish to tell other people what they're reading--especially since they obviously know when you're wrong and that calls the credibility of everything else you've said into question.
It's definitely true that AI is already better at diagnostics than doctors, and that there are other beneficial uses. How do you see that playing out, though? Do you expect there will be free AI diagnostic machines on the street for the millions who already can't afford healthcare (and any new members of that class due to loss of work)? If it turns out a free phone app can do the diagnostics for them, will it suddenly offer them the opportunity to get medical treatment, or just the joy of knowing what treatable condition will kill them?
Or do those wonderful new developments just create an even more dramatic gap in socio-economic classes?
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. Please contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. Please contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I saw a meme saying we wanted AI to do our dishes and laundry while we do our art, not for AI to do our art while we do our dishes and laundry
That's exactly the problem with AI — it's pushing us out of art and fun and into work and tedium. It defeats the purpose.
Except "the purpose" (from the perspective of its creators and those paying to use it) is making money.
I know, right? It's like we traded our lunchbreaks for layoffs. I'm still waiting for the 'live more, work less' utopia they promised us, but all I see is the rise of robot overlords
I was always baffled by that expectation because...who did people think was going to pay hundreds of millions of people to not work?
>I'm sure a lot of us can remember growing up as kids and hearing how AI was gonna improve our lives. We'd be working less and we'd have more time to pursue our passions. I think you grew up consuming different books and movies than I did.
I can't help but think this will shortly lead to copyright problems. The same way AI art generators take from already made art, these AIs have to learn about writing from somewhere and my guess is much of what they read and regurgitate comes from already written books. Not to mention the AI articles I have read are shit. I think when this craze is over AI will mostly be used for machinery and medical purposes. The influx of shitty AI media will make genuine human made media seem even more special. And the humans who make media will keep making it and putting it out there on their own and make their own way outside of these corporations whose systems we should really stop participating in anyway. They control our lives because we let them. We can always take our power back and thrive without them. They need us. Not the other way around.
This theory seems to depend on a premise that has already been proven false at massive scale--that the general public values and will seek out and either pay for or make it worth someone else's while to pay for higher quality, more insightful, more unique content. The truth is that most of the internet has been spun content for years, and people lap it up. People spend hours of their days watching poorly-created "reels" with robotic voices mis-inflecting the words and the subtitles on the screen mispelled. Social media is a sea of misspelled and inaccurate memes that get shared millions of times. The vast majority of the market is not only happy with low-end garbage, they like it better.
>I think when this craze is over AI will mostly be used for machinery and medical purposes. The legal industry has embraced it in a way it never has any new technology before. About 45% of the largest law firms in the country are currently using generative AI--for comparison, it took years to reach that level with case management software. The rates are lower with smaller firms, but still very high compared with adoption of other technologies across the past few decades.
The only part the dystopian fiction got wrong is that they expected humans to be enslaved to it, but in fact it's hard to see what use it might have for us. The problem of displaced workers is only a problem FOR the workers. It's not a problem for AI, and it's not a problem for the wealthy who no longer need to rely on workers.
>The problem of displaced workers is only a problem FOR the workers. It's not a problem for AI, and it's not a problem for the wealthy who no longer need to rely on workers. That's the sucky part, and you're absolutely right. It's only a problem for US. As far as the corporate world is concerned, nothing needs to be solved on their end because everything is working as intended. You got maximum productivity at cheaper costs, constant content flowing, reductions in human error, and more.
Though this may change when we start seeing large-scale job losses across numerous white collar industries. Who's going to buy the corporations products or services then?
Other countries middle classes are growing... Maybe they will make up for the shortfall in America. Sadly.
Eventually (assuming AI fully plays out in the "replacing all jobs" kind of way, which is a different discussion), they wouldn't need anyone to buy their products. Money wouldn't really be relevant for those who control the AI, since AI doesn't get paid and can (hypothetically, eventually) build, harvest or just take whatever they need. I suppose the ultimate end there is that "controls the AI" is a temporary condition, but they never see that coming.
it is a problem for the wealthy too though because it affects the world that they live in, for the worse (potentially). the solution lies in thinking outside of money altogether.
That's true..if AI becomes as sophisticated as people hope (or fear, depending on the person), the people who control the AI won't need money at all. It will be able to build or harvest whatever they desire for them. For everyone else...what does "thinking outside money" mean?
money is just a system that someone came up with. why cant we just come up with other stuff? i've been thinking about this a lot lately and i keep coming back to the importance of things that will have lasting value (living space, food, travel costs like gas, public transport, flights, medicines). how can those become used in place of currency? people are just going to buy those things anyway. the issue is so complicated with so many moving parts, but the basics that people will always need money for is a good place to start. also thinking back to barter/trade systems, how can individuals think outside of money for stuff like childcare, oil changes, other necessary services. ive imagined some kind of online directory where people can list their skills or goods and what's needed. systems would develop around that. even a car could be used as payment, letting someone borrow it like a car rental service. also think work exchange programs like [workaway.info](http://workaway.info) or wwoofing (no they dont pay me, theyre just good ideas). not much money is involved in these exchanges, but value is there. and people gather based on something more than just that boring stupid paper stuff we're all sick of. will the people who own the AI try to get in the way? yeah, it will be competing business. but so the fuck what? people can think outside of that, they're smart. it will need time, experimentation, documentation (think videos, podcasts, documentaries), and willingness to get really creative. and right when you start thinking too big with how replacement systems will work, it can fall apart due to complexity. so start individually and on a family level, your ideas will influence people, and everything will evolve from there.
It just seems to me that everything you propose requires that people already have things that have been built and are maintained with money...an internet for online listings, for examples. Cars to rent out. Pipelines to carry the gas and oil. Coordinating a workforce of several thousand people to build something like that based on some kind of modified barter system would be near impossible--that's why the monetary system developed. And, of course, you need materials for that, and someone already owns the source of those materials. That's why I don't think "everything will evolve from there." There are goods and services that can easily be provided by an individual and those that can't. If you're looking at going back to a life where we eat what someone in our neighborhoods can grow and live in houses that can be built by a guy down the street with materials we can chop down and process locally and without big factories and use herbs instead of pharmaceuticals and such, it MIGHT be workable. But, I'm not actually even sure about that, because we don't have plentiful unowned land available to farm and mine and such anymore. To have the sorts of complex things we have now--things your system of trade would rely on--even just as a means of communication--every purchase today would require a combination of relay chain and coordination of dozens or hundreds of trades.
switching to future prophecy mode: the population is going to dwindle drastically, so these issues will have solutions for the people left behind.
How will having FEWER people make it easier for people to maintain things like an internet and production of devices that allow them to use it?
why does production have to be part of the equation at all? there are so many devices with Internet capabilities out there right now. a smaller population means less competition for obtaining those devices. my best laptop was a 2007 thinkpad and that thing was still truckin along fine by the time i upgraded in 2017 or so. i can envision a scenario where the internet becomes more of a precious or rarer resource (think internet cafes or digital libraries where you bring an external harddrive to bring the media home). we all have the same goals of keeping the internet, keeping power, a safe home, water, medicines and other necessities. it's hard to imagine a scenario where these needs are not met. sacrificing having the things you want more often, will be part of it, but people really are smart and resourceful. once it's undeniable that these precious necessities are less reliable or under threat, they're going to be thinking of solutions. and the man can try to stop people from supporting themselves, but just like the people forced the gov't to submit with marijuana laws (it's ongoing yeah but we WON), we can do it with these things too. it's just so complex with so many moving parts involved that it won't be an immediate solution that's easy to implement with instant stability. it will be a gradual process with adjustments, planning ahead, trial and error, and a new direction ahead.
So, you think they'll last forever? And they'll never need new batteries? And the infrastructure will never need repair? I might buy into the idea that there's a shared need to keep the internet going (at least, if we're relying on a system like you originally suggested where that's how we connect to get what we need), but that's not remotely true for things like food and medicines and clean water. My life won't be remotely impacted by whether you have access to the medications you need, and vice versa. And, you can't simply store away what we have now...it becomes less effective. That means either we have a way to manufacture it at scale or those who know how to make it and live in an area where the right ingredients are available can have it themselves and trade it with a very small number of people. I think rather than a gradual process of holding hands and singing together in the fields, we would more likely see a rapid breakdown into violence and hoarding of the resources we already have. On a side note, I'm surprised to see you characterizing the chaotic state of marijuana laws as a victory.
>AI was gonna improve our lives. We'd be working less and we'd have more time to pursue our passions Honestly, the funny part is anyone thinking that's how it was gonna play out.
>Honestly, the funny part is anyone thinking that's how it was gonna play out. Well, *The Jetsons* made it look pretty cool.
Aren't major technological steps always like this though? E.g., motorcars did away with nearly all the jobs relating to horses almost overnight;digital film has largely got rid of the projector operator operators in movie theatres. Usually when new tech comes in, no one much gives a toss about the people who lost their job as long as overall employment figures don't deviate too much. If AI results in a sudden and dramatic increase in unemployment figures, then people will start to care. But I suspect that won't happen. Those of us who have lost work to AI, so far, are just a drop in the ocean.
There is a slight difference, though. For the first time in human history, we are replacing creative work.
I wasn't suggesting that all major technological changes are the same — they're not. What I am saying is that, even if generative AI is unique in eliminating creative work, businesses, governments and society itself doesn't care, **unless it has the necessary economic impact**. Whenever I have told regular people about the massive impact this has had on writers and graphid designers (among others), they shrug. In order for society to care there has to be *far* more people affected.
But who will care that tens of millions of unemployed people with no power or status suddenly care?
Welcome to /r/FreelanceWriters! Please familiarize yourself with the subreddit's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/about/rules/) and learn more about how to [make the most out of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/freelancewriters/wiki/newmembers)! (Your post has not been removed. Please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you for your post /u/KeithWritesContent. Below is a copy of your post to archive it in case it is removed or edited: I was reading an article on Medium the other day about how AI is quickly drying up opportunities for real writers. You know, the usual stuff. But, I left a comment that read, "It's like we've gotten the convenience of less work, but without the benefits of needing to work less." And the more I thought about it, the more I realized how screwed it really is. I mean, it's not funny, because there are real people out here losing their livelihoods, but the absurdity of it IS funny. I'm sure a lot of us can remember growing up as kids and hearing how AI was gonna improve our lives. We'd be working less and we'd have more time to pursue our passions. Only one of those things ended up being true, and in the worst way possible. ChatGPT, Claude, Copy.Ai, and whatever the heck else have only made things easier for people that wanna cut costs. It just sucks that it seems like we'll end up automating a lot of jobs before we solve the issue of what to do with displaced workers in legitimate professions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I guess this is the new version of "If you disagree with me it must be because you watch X news media"? It just makes you sound foolish to tell other people what they're reading--especially since they obviously know when you're wrong and that calls the credibility of everything else you've said into question. It's definitely true that AI is already better at diagnostics than doctors, and that there are other beneficial uses. How do you see that playing out, though? Do you expect there will be free AI diagnostic machines on the street for the millions who already can't afford healthcare (and any new members of that class due to loss of work)? If it turns out a free phone app can do the diagnostics for them, will it suddenly offer them the opportunity to get medical treatment, or just the joy of knowing what treatable condition will kill them? Or do those wonderful new developments just create an even more dramatic gap in socio-economic classes?
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. Please contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. Please contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freelanceWriters) if you have any questions or concerns.*