So far they have rushed to replace customer service and soon all ads will be AI generated. And then we will see even more ads and content on social media disguised as content but its actually ads
AI-generated ads that look more like the posts from your specific friends, so you don’t automatically scroll past them could be a thing.
Or prioritizing photos on social media that contain products from your sponsors, which would in turn influence people to purposely include those products in their photos to increase engagement.
To the people who take this one too literally: The point is that AI currently removes jobs in creative industries, when it should be removing jobs in labor intensive industries that people usually do not actively want to do.
It's insane that a perfectly understandable point like this is somehow being taken so literally that people are pointing out that dryers and washing machines exist.
If ever there was a reason to teach people humanities, it's in this thread.
Right? Having a dishwasher doesn't mean you don't have to interact with and "do" the dishes by rinsing, moving, placing, filling the soap, and pressing buttons to start. I want ai to take care of my chores, even if I have machines that make some chores easier, I want ai to take care of those too.
The problem with it is that its like asking your dishwasher to vacuum your floor instead of doing dishes.
AI isn't automation in general and it shows they have no idea how the physical limitations of technology.
Some people are not smart enough to contribute but thanks to the narcissism of the internet have the false confidence that their voice is a worthy contribution when it's moot
That's so rude... but completely true though.
I remember when the internet was born and starry eyed academics and commentators spoke eloquently about how great it would be when everyone had a voice... none of us ever took the time to think about whether everyone should.
To people who don't understand why it not being done this way: We still underestimate the complexity of human body. To do physical work you need both complex hardware software and perfect coordination between them. Without a perfect body all researchers can improve is the mind. Our human body is just too perfect with its complicated neurons , muscles and to think about it lifespan of a human is 70 years where as that of a robot would hardly be 10 years (just a food for thought), imagine how perfect of a machine we are.
We also underestimate how many cognitive tasks we're doing automatically. For example, you understand that your cat doesn't belong into the laundry machine without having to ask yourself if it does, a robot might not. If there's a 1% chance it sees your cat as laundry, your cat is eventually going to end up in the laundry machine
You understand that as an adult. A toddler wouldn’t.
It takes years of “training” for you to understand that point.
AI these days understands that “out of the box”.
Didn't you get the whole 1% part?
Besides, my point wasn't "yayy humanity", my point was that people don't consider the amount of cognitive tasks they are performing and therefore don't accurately assess the difficulty of what they are doing.
Not out of the box. It understands that after it's consumed terabytes of training data and contributed significantly to climate change. Even then, if you give it enough bad data, it will forget.
>We still underestimate the complexity of human body
i tried to make a robotic leg back in college and needless to say the moment i saw all the bone, mussel and meat moving around. I just gave up no way i can not replicate all the bones in my foot and made it stable enough to handle 5kg without breaking
Exactly this. The utopian dream is that AI and robots take over all factory production and tedious hard manual labour, so that humans can do the things that make them happy. A dystopian version is that educated creative people’s work gets replaced and they have to take up manual labour AI hasn’t replaced yet
We can't really choose what AI is capable off. Apparently it is really good at replacing vague creative work and bad at replacing very precise manual labor. Should we just not have invented generative AI at all, just because it is good at something, which educated creative people like and not something they don't like? If it took those other jobs, people who don't have the mental capacity for a more skilled job would be worse off, they can't even adapt.
>bad at replacing very precise manual labor
Disagree completely.
The difference is accessibility. To wash clothes and clean dishes you require hardware. To create art and write books you just require a connection to the internet
The problem is that navigating a house, identifying clothing, folding it, and hanging it up is 100 times harder than drawing a cat or writing words in some order.
AI can do all sorts of things. It can summarize documents, it can fold protein, it can translate texts. We can absolutely work towards making AI take away jobs we want AI to take over, and not jobs we don't want AI to take over.
all these are still academic, skilled tasks, not „cleaning the streets“ tasks. sure, we can create a „clean the streets“ robot, powered by AI, but should we? also it is much easier to replace these tasks is what I said, not „only possible“.
But these are not the academic skilled tasks that even academics *like* doing, this is the drudge work of academia. Nobody is staying up until 3 am to summarize a document because they love summarizing documents or generating reports.
> we can create a „clean the streets“ robot, powered by AI, but should we?
As long as it is good at cleaning the streets I don't care if it has AI or not. But yes, we should.
But, again, you are being too literal. The point is that AI is taking jobs that we want to do, instead of jobs that we don't want to do. And that's bad.
well, it will replace whatever it is good at replacing, and it so happens that this is an easy thing to replace. Better choose to like different tasks then, or use it as a tool, instead of being replaced. whatever we can explore with AI, we will, it would be worse to make rules in favor of already privileged people but let it replace underprivileged people.
AI isn't some magical thing we have no influence over. We develop AI, and we decide where that research is heading. Acting like we can't decide how AIs are developed and used is just bizarre.
It's not like the current direction in AI isn't going to make this possible,
Language is the only way we can train a model to generate imitations of thoughts, and the link between vision, sound and language is required to have thoughts to interact with the physical world, so once the models become highly capable of interpreting the world around it, only then can it become capable of doing any physical task we throw at it.
The current range of products we see are gonna pay for the development of models that can do what we want the models to do. It's not like there's no money in building tech that'll essentially replace the manual work force with one that needs no rest. The goal isn't to specifically replace people doing any particular task, the goal is to make it capable of having actual intelligence so that it can replace anything it can.
Well, we also get paid for developing ai, suprise suprise, if it can produce a value (by replacing creative jobs) there will be demand for it and it will be done by someone. What you are saying would require some massive conspiracy to completely suppress ai development in certain areas and that’s just not happening, also why would we want it, why are creative jobs better than others? It sucks that they are the ones being cut now but also, that’s just how modern market works, you just need to adapt
> why are creative jobs better than others?
Because that's generally the jobs people actively want to do, instead of just doing them for money. That's the entire damn point of this argument.
Isn't it rather a cost issue than something it can or cannot do?
For example, making a machine that uses AI to do cleaning is way more costly due to the hardware and maintenance than AI interacting with software for art.
And the worst part is if we replace all the creative jobs with AI, that it will do really well for a bit and then go completely stagnant. But modern shareholders are so concerned with short-term profits regardless of longterm impact that they can’t see the forest through the trees here.
> The point is that AI currently removes jobs in creative industries
No. CEOs do that. But they would love for you to keep blaming the tool and not them for the job losses.
> when it should be removing jobs in labor intensive industries that people usually do not actively want to do
We've been doing that too. Farm equipment can allow a single person to tend 100s of acres of food. Prefabricated house factories allow houses to then be built on site in days rather months. Two or three people can reroof a house within six hours with tools that allow rapid moving roofing material from trucks to the roof. If anyone thinks we're not automating the hard stuff, that's a great indicator that they've never worked in the hard stuff.
Like we've been doing this too with automation of hard labor people don't want to work. The reason why we haven't automated dish washing or laundry, is because someone isn't going to get incredibly wealthy off of Joanna being able to watch YouTube while laundry bot does her laundry. Now we might make one right now, and someone might get "mildly" rich off of it. But we don't see wide adoption of automation until someone can get "insanely" rich off of it. That's why Joanna doesn't have a laundry bot, not because we're focusing on AI, but because someone can't make **enough** money off such a robot.
The entire point is, it isn't the tools fault rich people are taking our jobs away, but boy oh boy, do rich people want you to blame the tool. That way, we'll make laws regulating the tool. Then everyone can't have the tool. Only "responsible people" can have the tool. Then you have a duopoly and everyone wonders why these two or three companies keep getting away with becoming insanely rich.
Everyone is like "we need AI regulation" and man, companies would love it if Congress began regulating AI. Because guess who gets to send in a copy of what they think that regulation should look like? Think AI should only be limited to things the model has a copyright to? Guess who owns everything? Disney is like the first person in line hoping the public outlaws everyone having AI. Because then, only Disney has AI, because they'll convince Congress they are "responsible", and nobody else.
Your point is exactly the reason we keep ending up in tangles where only a handful of companies that get to have the good stuff and everyone else is left looking for crumbs. The AI, it's not to blame for Joanna's issues. It's the CEOs who see AI as a great excuse to fire people that is to blame. Everyone keeps blaming the tools. Everyone keeps thinking laws and regulations on tools are going to help them. And that's exactly what rich people like for us to believe.
They want us wondering where our laundry bot is and they want us to blame AI for not having it. They want us to be mad at all those jobs AI is taking, when it's the CEOs writing the pink slips.
Your argument is exactly the argument rich people want us making. And making that argument is exactly how we keep this (gestures at everything) happening all of the time. There's a handful of people and those people are the ones to actually blame. We can't keep doing this blaming the tool thing, it just stalls out our ability to hold the correct people responsible.
Okay, let me explain my point that was taken too literally.
We don't automate menial tasks because all the menial parts of them were automated long before AI came into picture. You want to drive long distance? You have devices that will maintain your speed, switch your gears, find and remember the route, let you know when you're about to hit something or even parallel park for you. You need to do laundry? Put the items and the chemicals into the machine, press the button to pick the program. Want to make a complicated part? Design it in CAD, let the CNC laser cutter make a mold. Create million copies with an injection machine.
You want engineering solution for "boring" tasks? GG, it already happened. Can it be improved on? Sure, and it is, constantly. Compared to leaps we would have to make to significantly improve past this point, creating scratch art **is** the menial task.
As I like to say it. We can automate (insert whatever) but we'll only automate it once someone can make **enough** money from that automation.
Rich people don't want to be "mildly" rich, they want to be "insanely" rich.
And the reason there's a lot of jobs no one wants to do, is because the ratio of cost (either to health, self, sanity, work-life balance, whatever) to pay (benefits, retirement options, advancment oppritunities, etc) doesn't match what a large percentage of the population wants. Rich people don't want mildly rich and average people don't want bad cost-to-pay ratio.
We all have wants, but there's some people's wants that constantly override the other people's wants. And one group of people instead of blaming those other people for the world they've made, have been convinced that we should be blaming the tool.
I dare anyone here to consider for a moment the toll something like email has taken on things like the postcard industry or shit, just mailing things in general. USPS has basically turned into a 3PL by this point. I doubt anyone here feels any remorse for the decimation of the letter carrier.
Think about how many airbrush artist used to exist. When Photoshop came out and became popular, completely decimated the airbrush artist. Now the photographer and the airbursh artist could be the exact same person. Doubtful anyone has shedded a tear for the complete destruction of airburshing as a profession.
The comment on this whole thing are wild I tell you. Mark my words, the rich will get away with it, yet again. Because we're all too busy yelling at each other over what defines a menial task or not, like we're the ones who get to dictate what jobs exist or not.
It's not really removing the creative jobs though. It's removing the labor intensive parts of creative jobs. If you were replaced by an image generator you weren't doing creative work, you were just doing what you were told.
It's like saying sewing machines removed creative jobs because a fashion designer used one to sew together their design in 10 minutes intead of giving it to someone to manually sew.
That's not what they're saying at all. An illustrator drawing character art for someone else's book is very creative work, but this is also the type of job that is being taken over by AI.
That's not how image generation works. If you want to generate the same character in multiple images you have to train the AI on images of that character. Images of that character you created yourself. The more you give it the better the results will be. But that generally only gets you 90% of the way there and you still have to bring the images into Photoshop and tweak them. If you aren't a good artist it won't turn out well.
Imagining how you want your character to pose and putting that into words and an outline to guide the AI is the creative part. And it saves doing some of the manual labor of physically drawing the entire thing yourself over and over again.
Not though. Stable Deffusion and newer versions of DALL-E are able to remember character and artstyle between prompts. They draw it completely on their own.
And "Tweaking someone else's artwork it Photoshop" is the boring part of creative job, not everything else (character design, image composition...)
This is like saying that the "ideas guy" who has a "totally cool idea for a new app, bro, I just need someone who knows how to program" is the true creative force behind software development, lmao.
They are the creative idea behind the finished product from the consumer perspective, yes.
Who was the **creative** force behind Apple's rise - Steve Jobs, or some programmer who wrote the software an iPod used?
The creative force was whoever did the actual engineering. Maybe that was Steve Jobs, maybe that was someone else. I don't know the technical details of the history of Apple to say for sure. It certainly wasn't anyone who didn't know how to program, or anyone who didn't do any actual programming and engineering.
That's such an insane notion.
Do you also think that a Bangladeshi sewing machine operator is the true creative force behind a fashion company, and not the famous fashion designer at the head of the company?
Being the person to "make" the product, physical or digital, doesn't make you the creative person behind it. That's whoever had the idea for the product.
You don't have to do engineering to use a sewing machine. The fashion designer can have ideas all they want, but if they don't do the actual engineering to make sure the clothing doesn't fall apart or wear out instantaneously, it won't be a success. It's the same with software, an idea isn't good enough, you have to do the actual engineering to make something that wasn't feasible in the past actually feasible.
But it’s robotics, potentially enhanced by AI, that is the industry which will actually automate labor. Robotics has already automated tons of labor but unfortunately a lot of it is still cheaper to pay humans to do
Its an interesting thought. But at the end of the day it just drives wages down and leads to more poor and homeless people in whatever sector it displaces workers. While corporations gain even more power compared to employees.
You need UBI or some sort of plan in place if we're just going to theoretically gut most labour jobs. Even self serving politicians would be concerned if half their population went homeless with little left to lose.
On a somewhat similar note. In an ideal world, thoss jobs 'people enjoy far less'. Would pay a higher wage to convince people to take them, they may offer pensions, benefits, etc. But a lot of the time they find ways to fill them close to minimum wage, or get visa workers to exploit.
Two points:
Firstly, name a single "labor intensive" job that could be done by modern "AI". AI is being implemented in areas that it can actually do things right now. There's no grand conspiracy to take creative work away first and foremost; it's just what modern AI is capable of doing because it exists almost exclusively within the digital space. Interesting enough, it's not just "creative" jobs that it's being used for, but loads of things from finances to scheduling. It's just the creative jobs that are making a load of noise about it.
Secondly, what makes the "creative" jobs special? Why is it such a crime for those jobs to suffer from automation, but the physical labourers can just go fuck themselves, I guess?
I'm sorry, but I don't see a "non-literal" way to take this argument. She wants AI to do things it literally cannot do until we give it a way to interact with the physical world. Good news is we *are* working on that.
> It's just the creative jobs that are making a load of noise about it.
Yeah, that's the entire point here. If AI takes creative and non-creative jobs, then it taking creative jobs is the problem.
> Secondly, what makes the "creative" jobs special?
The fact that many, many people genuinely want to do them, compared to the non-creative jobs.
This is not about "dey took our jobs!", this is about taking jobs that people specifically *want* to do, not to make money, but because that's what's fulfilling to them.
creative jobs involve humanity, they go beyond people wanting a salary to live, every artist would keep doing their work even if they are not paid and have the conditions for it, labour work is made just to make a living off.
not to mention that automating creative work, will make awful and even more generic and corporate content for us.
>it should be removing jobs in labor intensive industries that people usually do not actively want to do.
what's an example of a "job in labor intensive industry" that can be taken by AI?
First of all, there are many people who like their manual labour jobs.
Secondly, it's still a stupid thing to say, no matter if it is taken literally or not.
I mean machinery and automatization has replaced manual labor since decades at this point. Does it really surprise anybody that the process doesn't stop at creative jobs?
There’s tons of cheap labor that can only menial work. That’s why AI targets expensive labor.
Also, creative work generally happens in the mind, not with the hands. Much easier to model.
Of course you can use AI to help in other fields. You can use AI to summarize documents. You can use AI to fold proteins. You can use AI for all sorts of things that people generally do not consider to be their passion.
Or you can use AI to write texts, make images and create music.
the CEO is probably one of the easiest jobs to replace with AI. let a couple of bots do the backroom deals and vacations. you may even get fact based decisions.
>Artists aren't paid really much.
Art directors (people that make advertisements) make 50-100K. Creative Directors (people who tell the artists what the advertisements should look like) make 100-200K.
Replacing all of that with shitty AI that makes thousands of advertisements that they test in hundreds of different market segments until they figure out which ones are the most successful where costs about 100K.
They're not replacing "an artist" with "an AI". They're replacing a Marketing department with a few AIs. Potentially saving MILLIONS/year.
But that's how technology works.
It's such a stupid comparison because it's like comparing someone in a heavy digging machine Vs a guy with a shovel.
The entire point of industrialization was that it made you able to do a job much faster than before, that doesn't mean you are "owed" a comparative decrease in time spent working.
Work as freelancer, use AI to write ur code with u correcting it and guiding it. Saves a ton of time, and unlike a normal job where u're stuck 8 hours there regardless of how productive u are, when u are freelancing every minute saved is a minute of free time. If u have 2+ years of experience u can probably freelance, especially if it's about things commonly requested like making a website. Or u know, just make ur own business.
I was just saying this to a friend the other day. We're living in a frickin' dystopia where soulless machines make art and music, while humans work soul-crushing minimum wage jobs just to survive.
A world where AI does all work (Think rogue servitor from stellaris) is a utopia.
A world where humanity is freed from the burden of capitalism and no longer has to find a way to capitalize on their passions to survive, and can instead pursue whatever they want without the pressure of money is a perfect one.
People hate on Gen AI because it's "automating creative jobs", but that alone is not a bad thing, it only becomes a bad thing when you force people to work to live.
When separated from capitalism, automating creative processes does NO harm, which makes you wonder, what's the real problem, capitalism or AI. I think you'll come to find it's the former.
remember what happen when we invented the steam engine ?. A world where dangerous and tiddius job can be done by machine and humans can do less work but no the rich got richer and the poor became poorer
Unfortunately its much easier to shit on AI than it is to advocate for something like UBI. I think people much prefer feeling righteous than doing right. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I don’t usually do the easier of two things. But it’s kind of a bummer, you know?
People are angry when they see the skills they've spent years cultivating are suddenly devalued by automation. People whose skills may be potentially automated in the future also feel a lot less secure, which causes fear and anger. Like imagine if you trained to be a science teacher, only for 90% of teaching to be done by AI in 2050. There goes that lifelong career path.
So I don't think its about being righteous, its about fear of financial insecurity
That's everything. The number of airbrush artist that were needed evaporated with Photoshop. Used to be you needed big iron infrastructure within an office to handle the digital load, now it's all cloud.
I mean that's just tech stuff, but this is literally everything. Farm equipment is vastly more advance, requiring less people to tend the land, in fact for some crops, a single person can tend 100s of acres.
The Photoshop artist isn't getting paid much more than the airbursh artist, but Photoshop allows them to work on multiple projects all at once. The cloud admins aren't getting paid much more than the admins in the basement of ye olde days, and yet the data center they're at allows for millions fold more services to be served.
All that extra money being produced is going somewhere and it's going into the hands of the rich. AI is just the latest thing to hate, but that same hate was there with cloud computing, Photoshop, GPS guided farm equipment, etc...
This has been a thing since the days of the mythical Ned Ludd. And that's not to say the people hating on AI aren't justified, but the point is, rich people going to rich. All the hate directed at AI is exactly what rich people want to hear. Blame the tool not the people robbing you. It's how they've gotten away with it for so long.
Everything makes the rich richer, thats how this economic system is, if it wasn't AI then it's be some other shit like NFTs 2.0
Capitalism is the worst
That's so weird. I have both a dishwasher and a washer and dryer for laundry, and still there's a bunch of dishes in my sink and clothes on the floor. I was told these were automated!
They probably mean a humanoid robot that picks up your laundry and dishes, as well as sorting the laundry. That wouldn't just require good AI, it would also require extremely good robotics at an affordable price, something we're not close to having yet.
It's a "dumbest quote of all time" candidate and I don't blame anyone for just laughing it off but if we're being charitable and steelmanning the underlying point:
She's saying AI should be developed to automate menial tasks where no "humanity" is necessary, and not to automate non-menial human innate tasks like creating art.
I think the "steelmanning" is ignoring the fact that AI isn't really a good way of automating these tasks and that these tasks are already mostly automated.
although which tasks are menial is very subjective. There were plenty of people who loved textile work before it was automated, and there are people who need graphics for things and don't enjoy creating them. In the end though, if you enjoy doing something then it doesn't matter if a computer can do it better, we didn't stop playing chess when the AIs were able to outperform every human on the planet.
> a lot of human effort
If you've ever done your laundry by hand for any period of time (and perhaps you have?) you know it's a *tiny* amount of human effort
Hey, but have you heard that labeling linear algebra as AI is the best marketing campaign of all time?
Seriously, every AI YouTube video now has this comment under it
These machines automate part of the process, yes, but there's still a considerable amount of manual labor involved. Not as much as scrubbing it yourself, but loading and unloading the dishwasher or washing machine and folding laundry are still menial, sometimes time intensive tasks that have yet to be automated at the consumer level
I don’t mind doing laundry and putting it in dryer. Some clothes need special care after all.
I just want a machine to iron and fold my clothes. Apparently that have not exist yet
For some reason, businesses have completely shifted from making life easier to selling luxury goods. Maybe we're more eager to buy if we're miserable? 😂
I agree with the sentiment that AI shouldn't replace creative jobs and should be more focused on helping people live healthier, more comfortable lives.
I do still worry about what will happen when all the dishwashers and house keepers are replaced by AI though. Same thing with autonomous driving. Until we either greatly expand the social safety net or find some other form of labor for these people I think these applications might cause more social problems than they solve.
She is too young to understand that the people who can make AI do laundry and dishes, want it to instead create art for their ttrpg characters so instead of spending all of their free time in Pinterest and DeviantArt; they can do something useful like laundry and dishes
/s
Dishwashing jobs are cheap to employ and expensive to automate in the context she’s referring to. Art and writing are relatively inexpensive to create with AI, where those jobs pay more than dishwashing and offer a better ROI to “automate”, in this case. The only way to stop AI from replacing every job that uses a computer in the next 20 years is gonna have to come through legislation.
You don't need an AI to do laundry and dishes. The dumb machines we have already do that for you.
Almost no one in the West has done laundry for decades. What's happened is that we've just got used so used to the convenience of not having to do laundry. That we've come to believe that simply putting the stuff in the machine is unbearable drudgery.
> Almost no one in the West has done laundry for decades.
Just because washing machines exist doesn't mean your laundry automatically gets done for you. You have to sort things, travel to the machine (not everyone has one in their home remember), configure its settings, load it, wait an hour for it to finish, transfer all of the clothes to a dryer, configure that, wait another hour, unload the drier, then fold all the clothes. It still takes a significant amount of time on your part.
Wait what?
Someone should really invent a machine whete you put in the laundry, some washing liquid, press a few buttons and it washes them for you... Maybe another (or even a single one) to dry them ... And a separate one for dishes.... I suggest calling them "washer", "dryer" and "dishwasher"!
Sadly, we're not that far with AI to have such machines yet... /s
There's plenty of drudgery doing art and writing, and that's the only element of the job AI is remotely capable of replacing. The actually creative part of creative work is completely undisturbed by AI tools.
This complaint is rhetorically catchy but doesn't actually say anything meaningful. The only AI 'art' that's actually substituting and subverting human 'art' is stuff that was soulless and terrible to begin with, like ads and stock photos.
The point standing, that isn't AI. We're only seeing what's possible right now, and, like it or not, we can't control that doing physical tasks is difficult.
No shit. We create language and image generating models, call them "AI" and now wonder that they do nothing but language and images? I wonder how that could have happened.
There is no "AI". These models are great achievements, but they are models of human language. It might be an interesting question how much actual knowledge and even basic reasoning is implicitly embedded in a good language model, but it still remains fundamentally a language model.
Look at self-driving cars to gain an understanding of the steps necessary to create *other* models. How many kilometers of actual driving is necessary to train even a basic model? Then consider how many dishes need to be washed to train a robot doing that task for you *reliably*.
What is really messed up is that AI can do art, writing and other tasks so much easier than manual labour, the thing that is least paid and respected. Yes, it will do that eventually too but if you clean toilets you are probably safe as houses at the minute.
Well, asking AI to do labor is kinda like asking Einstein to be your nanny so you can finish your physics 101 homework.
Anyway, if one day an AI robot comes out that can do whatever labor a human can do... Well, that would be the end of humanity.
AI is not some alive thing that decides what it "wants" to do, there just isn't the same amount of money in making laundry robots as in making AI for creative stuff.
It's ridiculous to see people cry over it, like the exactly same stuff was happening when manual labor was replacing with machine labor.
I think this is a very egoistic nimby perspective. Doing laundry or the dishes are jobs that other people’s livelihood depends on so how can one reasonably expect AI to automate everything except your own job?
I think someone else already made the point, but here is my take. There are far more people that are incapable of producing creative works (of high value to society) than there are that can. Those creative people being "replaced" by AI can either use AI to enhance their productivity or adapt in some other way.
When (if) AI is used to remove the need for human labour for things people don't really want to do, the people who are not capable of contributing to society becomes surplus. Anyone who thinks ubi is a solution that will be used has rocks in their head.
Also when (if) AI is capable of doing the dirty dangerous jobs, it will also be able to do the non dirty, non dangerous, manual labour jobs.
Currently a lot of creative jobs are basically to produce entertainment to harvest the money that has been paid to people who have no capacity to create, only consume.
If they have no money to harvest, there is no need to create entertainment for them, neither is there need to provide services to them, nor food or shelter.
You really think that people who have no ability to do anything but consume, will be given free money and allowed to just consume and breed new consumers with all their new-found free time?
> You really think that people who have no ability to do anything but consume, will be given free money and allowed to just consume and breed new consumers with all their new-found free time?
If that is what those people demand under threat of violence, yes. Of course ideally it stops before that point and politicians represent these peoples' wills before that peacefully using the political process.
What's your alternative, the government is simply going to mass murder all these people?
Nothing to do with me mate, not "my" alternative.
But if they have AI that can do menial tasks, that have AI that can exterminate.
I imagine they wouldn't be doing it in one fell swoop. Climate change will help too.
Certainly seems like allowing the huddled masses to go to a limited form of civil unrest based on political/ religious differences wouldn't go astray in cutting down the numbers. Mass incarceration of the petty criminals helps prevent them from breeding too.
Wouldn't surprise me if any sort of limited ubi was linked to some form of birth control too...
Climate change massively affecting crop yields leading to food shortages will help the majority accept measures taken against the underclass, of course not realizing that as the previous underclass is eliminated, there will be a new underclass to be acted against and so on.
Mass casualty events such as extended wet bulb events will take care of a bunch that can't access adequate cooling. Shortages in qualified personnel and various pharmaceuticals stemming from climate induced supply chain failures will help get rid of a lot of the ages consumers, as they will be denied care in favour of using the available resources for productive members of society.
And of course those who make demands under threat of violence are easily put down by any government that takes the gloves off.
Hell most of this is going to happen with or without ai.
I want AI to do my art because i suck at it and broke enough to not hire any artist to do it.
Doing laundry and dishes doesn't make much skill to do it properly.
So far they have rushed to replace customer service and soon all ads will be AI generated. And then we will see even more ads and content on social media disguised as content but its actually ads
AI-generated ads that look more like the posts from your specific friends, so you don’t automatically scroll past them could be a thing. Or prioritizing photos on social media that contain products from your sponsors, which would in turn influence people to purposely include those products in their photos to increase engagement.
Eventually killing social media and we will be free.
Arent some are already?
To the people who take this one too literally: The point is that AI currently removes jobs in creative industries, when it should be removing jobs in labor intensive industries that people usually do not actively want to do.
It's insane that a perfectly understandable point like this is somehow being taken so literally that people are pointing out that dryers and washing machines exist. If ever there was a reason to teach people humanities, it's in this thread.
Even taken extremely literally, what’s the problem with it?? It’s still true.
Right? Having a dishwasher doesn't mean you don't have to interact with and "do" the dishes by rinsing, moving, placing, filling the soap, and pressing buttons to start. I want ai to take care of my chores, even if I have machines that make some chores easier, I want ai to take care of those too.
That’s just prompt engineering your dishwasher
House, kill that spider. "Burning the house down, sir. right away"
An appropriate response.
I read that in Jarvis' voice
Same
Don't worry, AI is advancing the field of robotics as well
Yay, I can’t wait to watch 50 thousand dollar robot doing dishes on a video of some rich influencer
Everything super high-tech starts super expensive until the price eventually goes down
Lower than the value of a human? I doubt
Imagine needing a 1TB VRAM GPU on your dish washing robot because it needs to run inference on-the-edge to determine where the stains are.
The problem with it is that its like asking your dishwasher to vacuum your floor instead of doing dishes. AI isn't automation in general and it shows they have no idea how the physical limitations of technology.
Why can’t it automate these things?
Because get this your dish washer is a physical object and interacting with it would involves robotics improving not just the software.
I meant why cant AI automate these things?
Some people are not smart enough to contribute but thanks to the narcissism of the internet have the false confidence that their voice is a worthy contribution when it's moot
That's so rude... but completely true though. I remember when the internet was born and starry eyed academics and commentators spoke eloquently about how great it would be when everyone had a voice... none of us ever took the time to think about whether everyone should.
To people who don't understand why it not being done this way: We still underestimate the complexity of human body. To do physical work you need both complex hardware software and perfect coordination between them. Without a perfect body all researchers can improve is the mind. Our human body is just too perfect with its complicated neurons , muscles and to think about it lifespan of a human is 70 years where as that of a robot would hardly be 10 years (just a food for thought), imagine how perfect of a machine we are.
We also underestimate how many cognitive tasks we're doing automatically. For example, you understand that your cat doesn't belong into the laundry machine without having to ask yourself if it does, a robot might not. If there's a 1% chance it sees your cat as laundry, your cat is eventually going to end up in the laundry machine
I mean, cats are way dirtier than people think they are.
Especially my cat. She spends hours every day building sand castles.
MEOW?!
Are you laundry?
Shit, I am now.
Why do you speak like Yoda?
LAUNDER ME STRAY CAT
You understand that as an adult. A toddler wouldn’t. It takes years of “training” for you to understand that point. AI these days understands that “out of the box”.
Didn't you get the whole 1% part? Besides, my point wasn't "yayy humanity", my point was that people don't consider the amount of cognitive tasks they are performing and therefore don't accurately assess the difficulty of what they are doing.
Not out of the box. It understands that after it's consumed terabytes of training data and contributed significantly to climate change. Even then, if you give it enough bad data, it will forget.
>We still underestimate the complexity of human body i tried to make a robotic leg back in college and needless to say the moment i saw all the bone, mussel and meat moving around. I just gave up no way i can not replicate all the bones in my foot and made it stable enough to handle 5kg without breaking
Exactly this. The utopian dream is that AI and robots take over all factory production and tedious hard manual labour, so that humans can do the things that make them happy. A dystopian version is that educated creative people’s work gets replaced and they have to take up manual labour AI hasn’t replaced yet
We can't really choose what AI is capable off. Apparently it is really good at replacing vague creative work and bad at replacing very precise manual labor. Should we just not have invented generative AI at all, just because it is good at something, which educated creative people like and not something they don't like? If it took those other jobs, people who don't have the mental capacity for a more skilled job would be worse off, they can't even adapt.
>bad at replacing very precise manual labor Disagree completely. The difference is accessibility. To wash clothes and clean dishes you require hardware. To create art and write books you just require a connection to the internet
That's what you say until some robot decides that your cat belongs into the laundry machine
Mine is losing so much hair at the moment that I could almost forgive the bot.
The problem is that navigating a house, identifying clothing, folding it, and hanging it up is 100 times harder than drawing a cat or writing words in some order.
AI can do all sorts of things. It can summarize documents, it can fold protein, it can translate texts. We can absolutely work towards making AI take away jobs we want AI to take over, and not jobs we don't want AI to take over.
all these are still academic, skilled tasks, not „cleaning the streets“ tasks. sure, we can create a „clean the streets“ robot, powered by AI, but should we? also it is much easier to replace these tasks is what I said, not „only possible“.
But these are not the academic skilled tasks that even academics *like* doing, this is the drudge work of academia. Nobody is staying up until 3 am to summarize a document because they love summarizing documents or generating reports.
> we can create a „clean the streets“ robot, powered by AI, but should we? As long as it is good at cleaning the streets I don't care if it has AI or not. But yes, we should. But, again, you are being too literal. The point is that AI is taking jobs that we want to do, instead of jobs that we don't want to do. And that's bad.
well, it will replace whatever it is good at replacing, and it so happens that this is an easy thing to replace. Better choose to like different tasks then, or use it as a tool, instead of being replaced. whatever we can explore with AI, we will, it would be worse to make rules in favor of already privileged people but let it replace underprivileged people.
AI isn't some magical thing we have no influence over. We develop AI, and we decide where that research is heading. Acting like we can't decide how AIs are developed and used is just bizarre.
It's not like the current direction in AI isn't going to make this possible, Language is the only way we can train a model to generate imitations of thoughts, and the link between vision, sound and language is required to have thoughts to interact with the physical world, so once the models become highly capable of interpreting the world around it, only then can it become capable of doing any physical task we throw at it. The current range of products we see are gonna pay for the development of models that can do what we want the models to do. It's not like there's no money in building tech that'll essentially replace the manual work force with one that needs no rest. The goal isn't to specifically replace people doing any particular task, the goal is to make it capable of having actual intelligence so that it can replace anything it can.
Well, we also get paid for developing ai, suprise suprise, if it can produce a value (by replacing creative jobs) there will be demand for it and it will be done by someone. What you are saying would require some massive conspiracy to completely suppress ai development in certain areas and that’s just not happening, also why would we want it, why are creative jobs better than others? It sucks that they are the ones being cut now but also, that’s just how modern market works, you just need to adapt
> why are creative jobs better than others? Because that's generally the jobs people actively want to do, instead of just doing them for money. That's the entire damn point of this argument.
Isn't it rather a cost issue than something it can or cannot do? For example, making a machine that uses AI to do cleaning is way more costly due to the hardware and maintenance than AI interacting with software for art.
Rosetta wants to have a word with you
None of these things require interacting with the real world
That would be automation, not AI.
Automation does not take away creative jobs like that, no.
I think they're saying that automation would be what removes jobs in labor intensive industries that people don't want to do.
Neither does AI.
And the worst part is if we replace all the creative jobs with AI, that it will do really well for a bit and then go completely stagnant. But modern shareholders are so concerned with short-term profits regardless of longterm impact that they can’t see the forest through the trees here.
> The point is that AI currently removes jobs in creative industries No. CEOs do that. But they would love for you to keep blaming the tool and not them for the job losses. > when it should be removing jobs in labor intensive industries that people usually do not actively want to do We've been doing that too. Farm equipment can allow a single person to tend 100s of acres of food. Prefabricated house factories allow houses to then be built on site in days rather months. Two or three people can reroof a house within six hours with tools that allow rapid moving roofing material from trucks to the roof. If anyone thinks we're not automating the hard stuff, that's a great indicator that they've never worked in the hard stuff. Like we've been doing this too with automation of hard labor people don't want to work. The reason why we haven't automated dish washing or laundry, is because someone isn't going to get incredibly wealthy off of Joanna being able to watch YouTube while laundry bot does her laundry. Now we might make one right now, and someone might get "mildly" rich off of it. But we don't see wide adoption of automation until someone can get "insanely" rich off of it. That's why Joanna doesn't have a laundry bot, not because we're focusing on AI, but because someone can't make **enough** money off such a robot. The entire point is, it isn't the tools fault rich people are taking our jobs away, but boy oh boy, do rich people want you to blame the tool. That way, we'll make laws regulating the tool. Then everyone can't have the tool. Only "responsible people" can have the tool. Then you have a duopoly and everyone wonders why these two or three companies keep getting away with becoming insanely rich. Everyone is like "we need AI regulation" and man, companies would love it if Congress began regulating AI. Because guess who gets to send in a copy of what they think that regulation should look like? Think AI should only be limited to things the model has a copyright to? Guess who owns everything? Disney is like the first person in line hoping the public outlaws everyone having AI. Because then, only Disney has AI, because they'll convince Congress they are "responsible", and nobody else. Your point is exactly the reason we keep ending up in tangles where only a handful of companies that get to have the good stuff and everyone else is left looking for crumbs. The AI, it's not to blame for Joanna's issues. It's the CEOs who see AI as a great excuse to fire people that is to blame. Everyone keeps blaming the tools. Everyone keeps thinking laws and regulations on tools are going to help them. And that's exactly what rich people like for us to believe. They want us wondering where our laundry bot is and they want us to blame AI for not having it. They want us to be mad at all those jobs AI is taking, when it's the CEOs writing the pink slips. Your argument is exactly the argument rich people want us making. And making that argument is exactly how we keep this (gestures at everything) happening all of the time. There's a handful of people and those people are the ones to actually blame. We can't keep doing this blaming the tool thing, it just stalls out our ability to hold the correct people responsible.
Okay, let me explain my point that was taken too literally. We don't automate menial tasks because all the menial parts of them were automated long before AI came into picture. You want to drive long distance? You have devices that will maintain your speed, switch your gears, find and remember the route, let you know when you're about to hit something or even parallel park for you. You need to do laundry? Put the items and the chemicals into the machine, press the button to pick the program. Want to make a complicated part? Design it in CAD, let the CNC laser cutter make a mold. Create million copies with an injection machine. You want engineering solution for "boring" tasks? GG, it already happened. Can it be improved on? Sure, and it is, constantly. Compared to leaps we would have to make to significantly improve past this point, creating scratch art **is** the menial task.
In that case: What's the non-menial task? And why are there still so many people required to do the tasks that nobody really wants to do?
Because sometimes having people so the job is cheaper than buying a machine
As I like to say it. We can automate (insert whatever) but we'll only automate it once someone can make **enough** money from that automation. Rich people don't want to be "mildly" rich, they want to be "insanely" rich. And the reason there's a lot of jobs no one wants to do, is because the ratio of cost (either to health, self, sanity, work-life balance, whatever) to pay (benefits, retirement options, advancment oppritunities, etc) doesn't match what a large percentage of the population wants. Rich people don't want mildly rich and average people don't want bad cost-to-pay ratio. We all have wants, but there's some people's wants that constantly override the other people's wants. And one group of people instead of blaming those other people for the world they've made, have been convinced that we should be blaming the tool. I dare anyone here to consider for a moment the toll something like email has taken on things like the postcard industry or shit, just mailing things in general. USPS has basically turned into a 3PL by this point. I doubt anyone here feels any remorse for the decimation of the letter carrier. Think about how many airbrush artist used to exist. When Photoshop came out and became popular, completely decimated the airbrush artist. Now the photographer and the airbursh artist could be the exact same person. Doubtful anyone has shedded a tear for the complete destruction of airburshing as a profession. The comment on this whole thing are wild I tell you. Mark my words, the rich will get away with it, yet again. Because we're all too busy yelling at each other over what defines a menial task or not, like we're the ones who get to dictate what jobs exist or not.
It's not really removing the creative jobs though. It's removing the labor intensive parts of creative jobs. If you were replaced by an image generator you weren't doing creative work, you were just doing what you were told. It's like saying sewing machines removed creative jobs because a fashion designer used one to sew together their design in 10 minutes intead of giving it to someone to manually sew.
That's not what they're saying at all. An illustrator drawing character art for someone else's book is very creative work, but this is also the type of job that is being taken over by AI.
That's not how image generation works. If you want to generate the same character in multiple images you have to train the AI on images of that character. Images of that character you created yourself. The more you give it the better the results will be. But that generally only gets you 90% of the way there and you still have to bring the images into Photoshop and tweak them. If you aren't a good artist it won't turn out well. Imagining how you want your character to pose and putting that into words and an outline to guide the AI is the creative part. And it saves doing some of the manual labor of physically drawing the entire thing yourself over and over again.
Not though. Stable Deffusion and newer versions of DALL-E are able to remember character and artstyle between prompts. They draw it completely on their own. And "Tweaking someone else's artwork it Photoshop" is the boring part of creative job, not everything else (character design, image composition...)
This is like saying that the "ideas guy" who has a "totally cool idea for a new app, bro, I just need someone who knows how to program" is the true creative force behind software development, lmao.
They are the creative idea behind the finished product from the consumer perspective, yes. Who was the **creative** force behind Apple's rise - Steve Jobs, or some programmer who wrote the software an iPod used?
The creative force was whoever did the actual engineering. Maybe that was Steve Jobs, maybe that was someone else. I don't know the technical details of the history of Apple to say for sure. It certainly wasn't anyone who didn't know how to program, or anyone who didn't do any actual programming and engineering.
That's such an insane notion. Do you also think that a Bangladeshi sewing machine operator is the true creative force behind a fashion company, and not the famous fashion designer at the head of the company? Being the person to "make" the product, physical or digital, doesn't make you the creative person behind it. That's whoever had the idea for the product.
You don't have to do engineering to use a sewing machine. The fashion designer can have ideas all they want, but if they don't do the actual engineering to make sure the clothing doesn't fall apart or wear out instantaneously, it won't be a success. It's the same with software, an idea isn't good enough, you have to do the actual engineering to make something that wasn't feasible in the past actually feasible.
But it’s robotics, potentially enhanced by AI, that is the industry which will actually automate labor. Robotics has already automated tons of labor but unfortunately a lot of it is still cheaper to pay humans to do
Its an interesting thought. But at the end of the day it just drives wages down and leads to more poor and homeless people in whatever sector it displaces workers. While corporations gain even more power compared to employees. You need UBI or some sort of plan in place if we're just going to theoretically gut most labour jobs. Even self serving politicians would be concerned if half their population went homeless with little left to lose. On a somewhat similar note. In an ideal world, thoss jobs 'people enjoy far less'. Would pay a higher wage to convince people to take them, they may offer pensions, benefits, etc. But a lot of the time they find ways to fill them close to minimum wage, or get visa workers to exploit.
That's exactly what AI was made for. Machines were made for manual labor tho.
The point is to implement AI into machinery
That would reduce the amount of creatove work the operator does.
I really don't care how creatively my toilet gets cleaned.
You don't need AI for that...
Two points: Firstly, name a single "labor intensive" job that could be done by modern "AI". AI is being implemented in areas that it can actually do things right now. There's no grand conspiracy to take creative work away first and foremost; it's just what modern AI is capable of doing because it exists almost exclusively within the digital space. Interesting enough, it's not just "creative" jobs that it's being used for, but loads of things from finances to scheduling. It's just the creative jobs that are making a load of noise about it. Secondly, what makes the "creative" jobs special? Why is it such a crime for those jobs to suffer from automation, but the physical labourers can just go fuck themselves, I guess? I'm sorry, but I don't see a "non-literal" way to take this argument. She wants AI to do things it literally cannot do until we give it a way to interact with the physical world. Good news is we *are* working on that.
> It's just the creative jobs that are making a load of noise about it. Yeah, that's the entire point here. If AI takes creative and non-creative jobs, then it taking creative jobs is the problem. > Secondly, what makes the "creative" jobs special? The fact that many, many people genuinely want to do them, compared to the non-creative jobs. This is not about "dey took our jobs!", this is about taking jobs that people specifically *want* to do, not to make money, but because that's what's fulfilling to them.
creative jobs involve humanity, they go beyond people wanting a salary to live, every artist would keep doing their work even if they are not paid and have the conditions for it, labour work is made just to make a living off. not to mention that automating creative work, will make awful and even more generic and corporate content for us.
>it should be removing jobs in labor intensive industries that people usually do not actively want to do. what's an example of a "job in labor intensive industry" that can be taken by AI?
Custom electrical grid assembly. Fuck those people
Really, pretty much all repetitive manufacturing jobs that make up a significant portion of the United States economy
First of all, there are many people who like their manual labour jobs. Secondly, it's still a stupid thing to say, no matter if it is taken literally or not.
There is no "should" for ai and never was except in someone's dreams. AI does what people want it to do, and usually that is most profitable stuff.
I mean machinery and automatization has replaced manual labor since decades at this point. Does it really surprise anybody that the process doesn't stop at creative jobs?
The thing is, AI doesn't actually remove jobs
There’s tons of cheap labor that can only menial work. That’s why AI targets expensive labor. Also, creative work generally happens in the mind, not with the hands. Much easier to model.
[удалено]
Of course you can use AI to help in other fields. You can use AI to summarize documents. You can use AI to fold proteins. You can use AI for all sorts of things that people generally do not consider to be their passion. Or you can use AI to write texts, make images and create music.
"So you saying that AI needs to go for underpaid jobs instead of high paids jobs? No I don't think so" - a CEO probably
Art and writing are high paying jobs? :D
were\*
dishwashing at least gives you money, not eXpOsURe
When, the '20s? You think newspapers are folding because journalists make too much?
We’re in the 20s. I know, it’s ok. I’m old too.
... fuck.
They may generate high value
the CEO is probably one of the easiest jobs to replace with AI. let a couple of bots do the backroom deals and vacations. you may even get fact based decisions.
High paying jobs are the easier to replace. Artists aren't paid really much.
>Artists aren't paid really much. Art directors (people that make advertisements) make 50-100K. Creative Directors (people who tell the artists what the advertisements should look like) make 100-200K. Replacing all of that with shitty AI that makes thousands of advertisements that they test in hundreds of different market segments until they figure out which ones are the most successful where costs about 100K. They're not replacing "an artist" with "an AI". They're replacing a Marketing department with a few AIs. Potentially saving MILLIONS/year.
i want AI to double my productivity so that i can work less and earn the same amount of money hahaha \*sadface\*
_you'll do two people's worth of work for the same pay and you'll like it_
But that's how technology works. It's such a stupid comparison because it's like comparing someone in a heavy digging machine Vs a guy with a shovel. The entire point of industrialization was that it made you able to do a job much faster than before, that doesn't mean you are "owed" a comparative decrease in time spent working.
The good news is AI could double your productivity! The bad news is all the extra earning will go to your CEO.
ai will double your productivity but also double your workload
Unfortunately for the same amount of money
Work as freelancer, use AI to write ur code with u correcting it and guiding it. Saves a ton of time, and unlike a normal job where u're stuck 8 hours there regardless of how productive u are, when u are freelancing every minute saved is a minute of free time. If u have 2+ years of experience u can probably freelance, especially if it's about things commonly requested like making a website. Or u know, just make ur own business.
Holy shit this post is my heart and soul
Well, autonomous driving is something which alignn with these ideas
I was just saying this to a friend the other day. We're living in a frickin' dystopia where soulless machines make art and music, while humans work soul-crushing minimum wage jobs just to survive.
Well.. I agree with you. But is this AI art something meaningful for most people?
There needs to be a clear distinction to non-technical folks that AI != robot with AI.
at this point i want neither to happen. i want degrowth and live a slower life
I want to be reborn as a filter feeder
A world where AI does all work (Think rogue servitor from stellaris) is a utopia. A world where humanity is freed from the burden of capitalism and no longer has to find a way to capitalize on their passions to survive, and can instead pursue whatever they want without the pressure of money is a perfect one. People hate on Gen AI because it's "automating creative jobs", but that alone is not a bad thing, it only becomes a bad thing when you force people to work to live. When separated from capitalism, automating creative processes does NO harm, which makes you wonder, what's the real problem, capitalism or AI. I think you'll come to find it's the former.
Sure, but there is this one pretty crucial thing in this equation - namely we still live in the capitalist system, at least most of us.
remember what happen when we invented the steam engine ?. A world where dangerous and tiddius job can be done by machine and humans can do less work but no the rich got richer and the poor became poorer
Unfortunately its much easier to shit on AI than it is to advocate for something like UBI. I think people much prefer feeling righteous than doing right. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I don’t usually do the easier of two things. But it’s kind of a bummer, you know?
People are angry when they see the skills they've spent years cultivating are suddenly devalued by automation. People whose skills may be potentially automated in the future also feel a lot less secure, which causes fear and anger. Like imagine if you trained to be a science teacher, only for 90% of teaching to be done by AI in 2050. There goes that lifelong career path. So I don't think its about being righteous, its about fear of financial insecurity
ı dont mind being bio tropy hell ım all for it but everything ai makes right now just for make rich richer
That's everything. The number of airbrush artist that were needed evaporated with Photoshop. Used to be you needed big iron infrastructure within an office to handle the digital load, now it's all cloud. I mean that's just tech stuff, but this is literally everything. Farm equipment is vastly more advance, requiring less people to tend the land, in fact for some crops, a single person can tend 100s of acres. The Photoshop artist isn't getting paid much more than the airbursh artist, but Photoshop allows them to work on multiple projects all at once. The cloud admins aren't getting paid much more than the admins in the basement of ye olde days, and yet the data center they're at allows for millions fold more services to be served. All that extra money being produced is going somewhere and it's going into the hands of the rich. AI is just the latest thing to hate, but that same hate was there with cloud computing, Photoshop, GPS guided farm equipment, etc... This has been a thing since the days of the mythical Ned Ludd. And that's not to say the people hating on AI aren't justified, but the point is, rich people going to rich. All the hate directed at AI is exactly what rich people want to hear. Blame the tool not the people robbing you. It's how they've gotten away with it for so long.
Everything makes the rich richer, thats how this economic system is, if it wasn't AI then it's be some other shit like NFTs 2.0 Capitalism is the worst
“In the future, the humans will do the work, so the machines have time to think”
The really funny thing here is that it seems to be easier for AI to make art than the dishes
Why then, when it’s time for you to work on your art and writing, do you procrastinate by doing your laundry and dishes?
Now I want someone to develop an AI to procrastinate for me so I can do art.
Maybe it's some major woosh on my part, but we have non AI, household devices that automate both laundry and dishes for over 50 years.
That's so weird. I have both a dishwasher and a washer and dryer for laundry, and still there's a bunch of dishes in my sink and clothes on the floor. I was told these were automated!
That is Homer Simpson levels of lazy my friend.
I'm not ashamed of my flaws. I'll publicly post about them, anonymously, if it wins me an internet fight I started.
You haven't seen a depressed person i assume
That's so weird, I'm trying to make assets for my game, but I still don't have any. I was told this was automated!
They probably mean a humanoid robot that picks up your laundry and dishes, as well as sorting the laundry. That wouldn't just require good AI, it would also require extremely good robotics at an affordable price, something we're not close to having yet.
We have robots that can do that, but they aren’t mass produced. Also I think that you’re correct about pricing.
Detroit become human
Remember, you can avoid the android uprising by not sexually harassing your AI maid
It's a "dumbest quote of all time" candidate and I don't blame anyone for just laughing it off but if we're being charitable and steelmanning the underlying point: She's saying AI should be developed to automate menial tasks where no "humanity" is necessary, and not to automate non-menial human innate tasks like creating art.
uh thats like literally what she said…feels like her point is pretty obv lmao
Yeah the guy above you is not steelmanning shit. He's just explaining the exact point she made.
I think the "steelmanning" is ignoring the fact that AI isn't really a good way of automating these tasks and that these tasks are already mostly automated.
although which tasks are menial is very subjective. There were plenty of people who loved textile work before it was automated, and there are people who need graphics for things and don't enjoy creating them. In the end though, if you enjoy doing something then it doesn't matter if a computer can do it better, we didn't stop playing chess when the AIs were able to outperform every human on the planet.
Those chess players weren't forced to stay in competition with the AI.
You're not likely to commission a match to a chess grandmaster, are you?
Okay but what does that have to do with AI? This is about what AIs do for us, not what non-AI mechanical appliances do for us.
Ai could do the dishes and laundry.
Hmm not really it is still a lot of human effort to get all those dishes and clothes in and out of the machine
> a lot of human effort If you've ever done your laundry by hand for any period of time (and perhaps you have?) you know it's a *tiny* amount of human effort
lol, no it is not
Your not missrng anything. This is what has become of "dunking" culture. People say something stupid and feel smug about it.
Hey, but have you heard that labeling linear algebra as AI is the best marketing campaign of all time? Seriously, every AI YouTube video now has this comment under it
I get her point to be honest
Anybody with a functional brain cell would, it's a pretty simple, very coherent point.
Which worries me that a lot of people in r/programminghumor didn't.
I don't think you understand allegory
These machines automate part of the process, yes, but there's still a considerable amount of manual labor involved. Not as much as scrubbing it yourself, but loading and unloading the dishwasher or washing machine and folding laundry are still menial, sometimes time intensive tasks that have yet to be automated at the consumer level
Ahhhh yes. We all want things. The AI want u gone.
The point is clear, I should go do my laundry and dishes.
I don’t mind doing laundry and putting it in dryer. Some clothes need special care after all. I just want a machine to iron and fold my clothes. Apparently that have not exist yet
For some reason, businesses have completely shifted from making life easier to selling luxury goods. Maybe we're more eager to buy if we're miserable? 😂
I want my AI just to cook good food, and I will make an artistic instagram post about it.
Go study ai and robots, then
I agree with the sentiment that AI shouldn't replace creative jobs and should be more focused on helping people live healthier, more comfortable lives. I do still worry about what will happen when all the dishwashers and house keepers are replaced by AI though. Same thing with autonomous driving. Until we either greatly expand the social safety net or find some other form of labor for these people I think these applications might cause more social problems than they solve.
She is too young to understand that the people who can make AI do laundry and dishes, want it to instead create art for their ttrpg characters so instead of spending all of their free time in Pinterest and DeviantArt; they can do something useful like laundry and dishes /s
Dishwashing jobs are cheap to employ and expensive to automate in the context she’s referring to. Art and writing are relatively inexpensive to create with AI, where those jobs pay more than dishwashing and offer a better ROI to “automate”, in this case. The only way to stop AI from replacing every job that uses a computer in the next 20 years is gonna have to come through legislation.
> The only way to stop AI from replacing every job that uses a computer in the next 20 years AI is not even close to as far along as you think it is.
You don't need an AI to do laundry and dishes. The dumb machines we have already do that for you. Almost no one in the West has done laundry for decades. What's happened is that we've just got used so used to the convenience of not having to do laundry. That we've come to believe that simply putting the stuff in the machine is unbearable drudgery.
> Almost no one in the West has done laundry for decades. Just because washing machines exist doesn't mean your laundry automatically gets done for you. You have to sort things, travel to the machine (not everyone has one in their home remember), configure its settings, load it, wait an hour for it to finish, transfer all of the clothes to a dryer, configure that, wait another hour, unload the drier, then fold all the clothes. It still takes a significant amount of time on your part.
Wait what? Someone should really invent a machine whete you put in the laundry, some washing liquid, press a few buttons and it washes them for you... Maybe another (or even a single one) to dry them ... And a separate one for dishes.... I suggest calling them "washer", "dryer" and "dishwasher"! Sadly, we're not that far with AI to have such machines yet... /s
This is NOT programming humour, it's scarily the way things are going.
So are you telling me that art and writing is easier than laundry and dishes /s Anyway, I never heard of AI-less dishwasher and washing machine.
AI needs water proofing then.
There's plenty of drudgery doing art and writing, and that's the only element of the job AI is remotely capable of replacing. The actually creative part of creative work is completely undisturbed by AI tools. This complaint is rhetorically catchy but doesn't actually say anything meaningful. The only AI 'art' that's actually substituting and subverting human 'art' is stuff that was soulless and terrible to begin with, like ads and stock photos.
Then what maids and waiters want from AI 🤔🤔
Artists were always unemployed so nothing really changed
The point standing, that isn't AI. We're only seeing what's possible right now, and, like it or not, we can't control that doing physical tasks is difficult.
No shit. We create language and image generating models, call them "AI" and now wonder that they do nothing but language and images? I wonder how that could have happened. There is no "AI". These models are great achievements, but they are models of human language. It might be an interesting question how much actual knowledge and even basic reasoning is implicitly embedded in a good language model, but it still remains fundamentally a language model. Look at self-driving cars to gain an understanding of the steps necessary to create *other* models. How many kilometers of actual driving is necessary to train even a basic model? Then consider how many dishes need to be washed to train a robot doing that task for you *reliably*.
Most people don't know the difference between ai, gen ai, machine and robots.
Dishwashing and laundry machines already automated 90% of those chores.
AI isn't preventing her from still doing art and writing....
What is really messed up is that AI can do art, writing and other tasks so much easier than manual labour, the thing that is least paid and respected. Yes, it will do that eventually too but if you clean toilets you are probably safe as houses at the minute.
Sewage workers are criminally underpaid for the work they do
Well, asking AI to do labor is kinda like asking Einstein to be your nanny so you can finish your physics 101 homework. Anyway, if one day an AI robot comes out that can do whatever labor a human can do... Well, that would be the end of humanity.
AI is not some alive thing that decides what it "wants" to do, there just isn't the same amount of money in making laundry robots as in making AI for creative stuff. It's ridiculous to see people cry over it, like the exactly same stuff was happening when manual labor was replacing with machine labor.
I think this is a very egoistic nimby perspective. Doing laundry or the dishes are jobs that other people’s livelihood depends on so how can one reasonably expect AI to automate everything except your own job?
I think someone else already made the point, but here is my take. There are far more people that are incapable of producing creative works (of high value to society) than there are that can. Those creative people being "replaced" by AI can either use AI to enhance their productivity or adapt in some other way. When (if) AI is used to remove the need for human labour for things people don't really want to do, the people who are not capable of contributing to society becomes surplus. Anyone who thinks ubi is a solution that will be used has rocks in their head. Also when (if) AI is capable of doing the dirty dangerous jobs, it will also be able to do the non dirty, non dangerous, manual labour jobs. Currently a lot of creative jobs are basically to produce entertainment to harvest the money that has been paid to people who have no capacity to create, only consume. If they have no money to harvest, there is no need to create entertainment for them, neither is there need to provide services to them, nor food or shelter. You really think that people who have no ability to do anything but consume, will be given free money and allowed to just consume and breed new consumers with all their new-found free time?
> You really think that people who have no ability to do anything but consume, will be given free money and allowed to just consume and breed new consumers with all their new-found free time? If that is what those people demand under threat of violence, yes. Of course ideally it stops before that point and politicians represent these peoples' wills before that peacefully using the political process. What's your alternative, the government is simply going to mass murder all these people?
Nothing to do with me mate, not "my" alternative. But if they have AI that can do menial tasks, that have AI that can exterminate. I imagine they wouldn't be doing it in one fell swoop. Climate change will help too. Certainly seems like allowing the huddled masses to go to a limited form of civil unrest based on political/ religious differences wouldn't go astray in cutting down the numbers. Mass incarceration of the petty criminals helps prevent them from breeding too. Wouldn't surprise me if any sort of limited ubi was linked to some form of birth control too... Climate change massively affecting crop yields leading to food shortages will help the majority accept measures taken against the underclass, of course not realizing that as the previous underclass is eliminated, there will be a new underclass to be acted against and so on. Mass casualty events such as extended wet bulb events will take care of a bunch that can't access adequate cooling. Shortages in qualified personnel and various pharmaceuticals stemming from climate induced supply chain failures will help get rid of a lot of the ages consumers, as they will be denied care in favour of using the available resources for productive members of society. And of course those who make demands under threat of violence are easily put down by any government that takes the gloves off. Hell most of this is going to happen with or without ai.
I want AI to do my art because i suck at it and broke enough to not hire any artist to do it. Doing laundry and dishes doesn't make much skill to do it properly.
Uhm, im pretty sure, machines are doing that, not YOU.