I often quote this comment regarding AI advances and jobs [0]:
> Yes, many of us will turn into cowards when automation starts to touch our work, but that would not prove this sentiment incorrect - only that we're cowards.
>> Dude. What the hell kind of anti-life philosophy are you subscribing to that calls "being unhappy about people trying to automate an entire field of human behavior" being a "coward". Geez.
>>> Because automation is generally good, but making an exemption for specific cases of automation that personally inconvenience you is rooted is cowardice/selfishness. Similar to NIMBYism.
It's true cowardice to assume that our own profession should be immune from AI while other professions are not. Either dislike all AI, or like it. To be in between is to be a hypocrite.
For me, I definitely am on the side of full AI, even if it automates my job away, simply because I see AI as an advancing force on mankind.
I don’t hate AI. I hate the system in which automation is a bad thing. In which an individual’s only worth is the value they produce.
We should be elated that AI are taking peoples jobs because they are no longer jobs people “have” to do.
Instead people are terrified (and rightly so) because no jobs in a society that requires you to have a job means you have no worth. The capital class will use the disproportionate power given by ownership of AI as the final step to go from owning mostly everything to just owning everything.
Ask yourself, if there comes a point in time where automation has replaced most of the human workforce, and automation has replaced most of the military and policing forces. Do you really think those at the top are going to view the unemployable and unhappy masses as anything other than a threat? What do you think they’ll do then?
Yeah I agree. I was generally pretty pro AI art and agree with a lot of the pro AI sentiments here on a logical basis still, but as the tech develops I drift more and more towards thinking this may be a bleak path for humanity.
> Instead of replacing crappy jobs and freeing up peoples time to enjoy their life, we’re actually automating enjoyable pursuits.
Yeah really hit the nail on the head here. I thought a lot of backlash against AI was due to workers not really reaping the benefits of automation and that's a solvable problem. But I've seen a lot of artists who are retired or don't need to work dive into despair over this still. It's taking their passion away, not just their job.
I don't really know how we could stop it though without doing some sweeping Dune-level "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of the human mind" type laws.
I don't know about other people but I don't "fault" the AI anything, nor am I even particularly bothered by AI-generated content per se.
What fills me with dread is the obvious glee over removing human work from sellable products, when there is no viable alternative to working for most people. We've created a world where a lot of jobs can be automated, and that is somehow a bad thing, and it's going to be used to crush people. It's a labor issue not a philosophical one.
Okay, let's change my statement to: many technical people (or just people with jobs in general) say that AI won't come for our jobs, using words like "n/ever" as you have done, that "that's just not something machines will be able to do themselves. Ever. No machine will be able to say 'this is the most emotionally impactful texture and drape for that superhero's cape in this scene.'". My point is not on non-technical people particularly, it's on the latter part of my statement, that people in general think that they are somehow special and will be in for quite a rude surprise when AI and automation eventually does do what they thought was was only in the realm of mere humans. People in general underestimate the end to end automation that will occur. You do too, seeing as you've said what I've quoted above. You say AI is heavily used, great, but don't be surprised when AI is so heavily used that it becomes the only thing used, eventually.
I mean I get what you're saying, sucks to have someone or something take your job, but isn't this a neo-luddite type argument? AI is gonna come for us all eventually.
However, it's a bit annoying that the focus of the AI anxiety is how AI is replacing us and the resolution is that we embrace our humanity. Fair enough, but at least to me the main focus in my AI anxiety is that it will take my job - honestly don't really care about it doing my shitty art.
All these "AI-first" companies will continue to isolate, monitor, and direct the limited bits of human cognition and mobility required to get a particular job done. No harm in standing up for your emotional well-being and dignity until the particular job itself is fully automated or sent overseas.
It always suprises me those who have little sympathy for those who's jobs are under threat from AI now, while they assume their own jobs will remain secure
It is my moral obligation to express to you the fact that AI, even this kind of AI, is a death sentence for humanity. The progress of automation will eventually meet and surpass the human mind. But even before it does, perhaps long before it does, it will cause massive economic disruption and unemployment. The more complete automation becomes, the less power humans will have, the less influence humans will have over the powerful entities that hold the keys to critical resources such as jobs. The economics of automation leave little doubt that the outcome will be bad for humans. I’m sorry I can’t explain it more effectively here. But I think it’s clear to anyone who thinks it through carefully.
Please stop applying your intillenge to AI.
Edit: substantive counter-arguments would be highly appreciated
I personally believe that there are real silver linings to this. It's anecdotal, but I've seen people who don't normally reflect on their lives actually start to contextualize their role as workers, even if through fear of disruption.
Pointing out that it's not inherently AI's fault, more the way we've constructed our society - that the underlying goal is not to sustainably maximize wellbeing but to maximize wealth created (which leads to no safety net to keep the labor pool large and incentivizes the creation of AI to replace people cheaply) - is as important as dispelling "sci-fi self-awareness and autonomy" fears when talking about AI.
And there have been much stupider "public discourse" fads. They're not going anywhere and I'll take what I can get, honestly.
Reminds me of a stand up comedian who said about AI: “People are afraid that AI will take their jobs. But if it’s really that intelligent, it’s gonna let _us_ do the work”.
My problem is the type of person that proudly proclaims that all jobs can, should, and are going to be outdated by the use of AI. I have talked to people that believe that, and think that AI need to replace humanity for some reason. I don't understand them.
AI is exciting, and it can be an useful tool. There are a lot of use cases for it, and in the end I think it will be a good thing. However, what's worse than the detractors are the people blindly hoping that AI will automate every single thing a human touches. It shouldn't be used in that way. It has to be a tool to assist humans, not take away our professions and reasons to get out of bed in the morning.
Exactly. If AI would free you from having to work to survive there would be a lot less opposition. But it doesn't while taking away some of the better options for said work from some people.
I think the message here is that you are in control of what happens to you next. In this regard the headline and the post are fine. Well, unless you subscribe to the other philosophy camp (determinism).
The message is not on whether AI will change the jobs or not, of course it will. It may eliminate some, reduce others, change most, and likely create a few new ones instead. The point is about how people chose to react to it, and specifically that "putting the head under the sand" and crying later that AI took the jobs away is not going to help; accepting that the world changes and that you can do something about it and then leveraging it will.
Is it possible that some specific jobs disappear in several years from now, just like it was the case with factories, automation, etc.? Yes indeed it can. They may be taken by people leveraging AI (your boss, your company, your colleague). You can ignore the fact, or accept it and learn to leverage the same tools for your benefit, or better - the benefit of the society.
Lots of "analogies" are given in various threads here, like "Guns don't kill people, people who squeeze the trigger kill people" and "It is not the fall that kills you, but the landing". I do not agree. Sure you can argue any of the two sides, that's the whole point of these statements. They just serve to focus your argument on one side or another.
Entirely misses the point. The right frame for this is “AI wont take your job, but humans with ai will” [0]
There are countless examples of people up-skilling using AI. Today, that might threaten the bottom of the market. Soon, it will put everyone’s jobs at risk for disruption.
I do deny it. Automation does not destroy jobs even if you're impressed at how good it is at painting; see "Luddite fallacy" and "lump of labor".
Claiming AIs are going to take over or destroy the world has been a basis of "AI safety" research since the 90s, but that isn't real research, it's a new religion run by Berkeley rationalists who read too many SF novels.
> Yes, many of us will turn into cowards when automation starts to touch our work, but that would not prove this sentiment incorrect - only that we're cowards.
>> Dude. What the hell kind of anti-life philosophy are you subscribing to that calls "being unhappy about people trying to automate an entire field of human behavior" being a "coward". Geez.
>>> Because automation is generally good, but making an exemption for specific cases of automation that personally inconvenience you is rooted is cowardice/selfishness. Similar to NIMBYism.
It's true cowardice to assume that our own profession should be immune from AI while other professions are not. Either dislike all AI, or like it. To be in between is to be a hypocrite.
For me, I definitely am on the side of full AI, even if it automates my job away, simply because I see AI as an advancing force on mankind.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32461138#32463198
reply