Support NeoGAF

[Bragr]

Yuval Noah Harari was warning about this a few years ago:







"In the 19th century the Industrial Revolution created a huge urban proletariat, and socialism spread because no other creed managed to answer the unprecedented needs, hopes and fears of this new working class. Liberalism eventually defeated socialism only by adopting the best parts of the socialist program. In the 21st century we might witness the creation of a massive new unworking class: people devoid of any economic, political or even artistic value, who contribute nothing to the prosperity, power and glory of society. This "useless class" will not merely be unemployed — it will be unemployable. In September 2013, two Oxford researchers, Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, published "The Future of Employment," in which they surveyed the likelihood of different professions being taken over by computer algorithms within the next 20 years, and they estimated that 47 percent of US jobs are at high risk. For example, there is a 99 percent probability that by 2033 human telemarketers and insurance underwriters will lose their jobs to algorithms. There is a 98 percent probability that the same will happen to sports referees. Cashiers — 97 percent. Chefs — 96 percent. Waiters — 94 percent. Paralegals — 94 percent. Tour guides — 91 percent. Bakers — 89 percent. Bus drivers — 89 percent. Construction laborers — 88 percent. Veterinary assistants — 86 percent. Security guards — 84 percent. Sailors — 83 percent. Bartenders — 77 percent. Archivists — 76 percent. Carpenters — 72 percent. Lifeguards — 67 percent." (Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari)

Source: The rise of the useless class

Edited: added link

How will carpenters and lifeguards lose their jobs?

 

[8BiTw0LF]

How will carpenters and lifeguards lose their jobs?

When you can upload any/(every?) education to your brain.

I don't think it's near future - but in 10 years, maybe.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Time to make what money you can before you're replaced and sitting around waiting for UBI.

 

[Bragr]

When you can upload any/(every?) education to your brain.

I don't think it's near future - but in 10 years, maybe.

Even if you can upload whatever into your brain, you still need people to do the job.

 

[QSD]

Who needs a shrink if you can just store your bad memories - even replace it with happy "memories" that are not yours?

Hah, if it happens all bets are off. But Musk overpromises so I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

Even if you can upload whatever into your brain, you still need people to do the job.

But then it becomes a hobby. If everyone can do the job - there is no job.

 

[Bragr]

But then it becomes a hobby. If everyone can do the job - there is no job.

A hobby to sit on a beach overlooking swimmers like a lifeguard?

 

[8BiTw0LF]

A hobby to sit on a beach overlooking swimmers like a lifeguard?

Lifeguards and caretakers that needs a human touch will be the last jobs to be replaced - no doubt about it. But UBI will be introduced long before that.

So those jobs will also be hobbies - I guess.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Personally, I find this very scary.

AI will destroy vast swaths of employment - and then what?

 

[8BiTw0LF]

Personally, I find this very scary.

AI will destroy vast swaths of employment - and then what?

Exactly. There needs to be a tax on AI and robots which replaces humans, so those without jobs (the majority) gets a nice pay day every month.
My main concern is the CEO's who can remain at the top, while everyone else has to accept whatever income they can get - but history has shown that if our "overlords" are not taking good care of us, their heads end up on a stick.

No need to strive for anything other than your personal goals in life - and I think that's enough for the 99% population of the world.

 

[Bragr]

Personally, I find this very scary.

AI will destroy vast swaths of employment - and then what?

People are overdramatizing how fast this will go. We are still in an uncertain phaze.

 

[Fools idol]

Personally, I find this very scary.

AI will destroy vast swaths of employment - and then what?

exactly the case. My business makes 49 million of revenues this year and this thing automates 75% of what my team does for clients with custom software and it does so in seconds, making most of it trivial.

It even debugs its own code and comments it. I think my revenue will go to 0 within maybe 5 years max because my clients all have in house developers who will just switch things over to this to save money.

We are going to see an absolute nightmare unfold.

Worse is, this thing can basically generate high grade thesis content. A student at a university could generate their entire output and most dinosaur teachers wouldnt be able to detect it was done by an AI, therefore I can get qualifications for something I barely know shit about and walk out with paperwork that can get me a job.

Imagine how many people from poor countries will use this to spoof remote jobs and just sit there letting it do their job for them while collecting a pay cheque.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

People are overdramatizing how fast this will go. We are still in an uncertain phaze.

That's the other side of the argument... self driving ai's were supposed to be just about to hit the streets and meanwhile the reality is different.

Still investors have confidence, Uber is allowed to exist while losing so far close to 30 billion dollars because the day self driving hits the streets uber will go meteoric.

 

[Fools idol]

In terms of programming though, its a hyper charged tool, you still need the person to put it together, and in high level programming, it cant reason.

it can not reason on the level of a human being, yet, but given not much time and training, it most certainly will.

I gave a task to my senior most engineer and the same task verbatim to GPT3. The AI generated a better result in 5 seconds with next to 0 bugs than my best paid and experienced engineer could do in 3.5 hours.

I value my employees, but most companies don't, and it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines on what will happen to most coding jobs in the very near future. This can already do what it does NOW. God knows how good it is in 3 years time.

 

[Bragr]

exactly the case. My business makes 49 million of revenues this year and this thing automates 75% of what my team does for clients with custom software and it does so in seconds, making most of it trivial.

It even debugs its own code and comments it. I think my revenue will go to 0 within maybe 5 years max because my clients all have in house developers who will just switch things over to this to save money.

We are going to see an absolute nightmare unfold.

Worse is, this thing can basically generate high grade thesis content. A student at a university could generate their entire output and most dinosaur teachers wouldnt be able to detect it was done by an AI, therefore I can get qualifications for something I barely know shit about and walk out with paperwork that can get me a job.

Imagine how many people from poor countries will use this to spoof remote jobs and just sit there letting it do their job for them while collecting a pay cheque.

What sort of software are you making?

 

[Fools idol]

What sort of software are you making?

We have mostly accounting software (legacy) and stock allocation software for warehouses. It's a cushy income stream that will most certainly go to zero as this tech advances.


We do own a HR team management software as well that is much less likely to get replaced, but still, it will be a hit. I am already wealthy enough for 50 lifetimes but I fear for my beloved staff.

 

[Fools idol]

 

[Bragr]

it can not reason on the level of a human being, yet, but given not much time and training, it most certainly will.

I gave a task to my senior most engineer and the same task verbatim to GPT3. The AI generated a better result in 5 seconds with next to 0 bugs than my best paid and experienced engineer could do in 3.5 hours.

I value my employees, but most companies don't, and it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines on what will happen to most coding jobs in the very near future. This can already do what it does NOW. God knows how good it is in 3 years time.

How many lines was this code?

 

[jakinov]

AI is really dumb. I think the problem a lot of people here have is when they think AI they think of AI from movies. AI is just a bunch of techniques for making computers do stuff that normally were hard for you to program computers to do and humans were needed. It will get better and it will continue to replace jobs but the speed and quanity that it will do that is greatly exaggerated.

Lots of talk about it replacing programmers here. And sure to some extent it will help some programmers be way more productive and in turn you need less. But you would not build business critical systems that have to scale very well you would not trust AI to build it (parts leveraging AI is a differnet story). It can't do the human reasoning, and can't code anything without someone having already done it before. That's basically how it works today, it looks at other code humans already wrote and it puts it together to answer your question (often times with mistakes or is even wrong). It's like Google on cocaine. The kind of code that it writes is the kind of stuff you make junior developers do at a big company because it's trivial work.

 

[Bragr]

AI is really dumb. I think the problem a lot of people here have is when they think AI they think of AI from movies. AI is just a bunch of techniques for making computers do stuff that normally were hard for you to program computers to do and humans were needed. It will get better and it will continue to replace jobs but the speed and quanity that it will do that is greatly exaggerated.

Lots of talk about it replacing programmers here. And sure to some extent it will help some programmers be way more productive and in turn you need less. But you would not build business critical systems that have to scale very well you would not trust AI to build it (parts leveraging AI is a differnet story). It can't do the human reasoning, and can't code anything without someone having already done it before. That's basically how it works today, it looks at other code humans already wrote and it puts it together to answer your question (often times with mistakes or is even wrong). It's like Google on cocaine. The kind of code that it writes is the kind of stuff you make junior developers do at a big company because it's trivial work.

But that sort of code work is the bread and butter of the industry.

Since it's gonna be faster to code, companies will trim down, you don't need as many people anymore, but you still need people who understand the language and can test, implement, and operate it.

The high-end programmer jobs are still gonna be there.

I think what is happening now though, is that chatGPT makes it visual and testable for everyone to see how A.I. will impact industries. You can see the train, far down the line. And people freak out.

 

[Tams]

it can not reason on the level of a human being, yet, but given not much time and training, it most certainly will.

I gave a task to my senior most engineer and the same task verbatim to GPT3. The AI generated a better result in 5 seconds with next to 0 bugs than my best paid and experienced engineer could do in 3.5 hours.

I value my employees, but most companies don't, and it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines on what will happen to most coding jobs in the very near future. This can already do what it does NOW. God knows how good it is in 3 years time.

And that's just GPT-3.

OpenAI already have GPT-4, which I believe is 'complete'. How much better it is, is only speculation for us outsiders, but it will be better.

 

[QSD]

Sure if it would only be a "program", an NPC or a intelligent construct of multiple processes than it makes a lot of sense what you write down. But where will this lead us? Technology will improve rapidly were it's getting harder and harder to even predict the next 10 years.

You only have yourself, to compare in regards to feeling senses. You are right that a lot comes from our body. But to perceive could be completely different if you are a machine. Who knows where technology will lead us. It doesn't need to be pain as we know it but something that you couldn't even process since you are human. Of course it is natural to look for direct comparisons since what else do we got but i'm convinced there will be a point where it all tips and we loose the possibility to understand the AI through our limited minds. It feels like nobody tries to look beyond although it sure makes sense to think more of the near future. Also seems the thread is more aimed towards that.

You are right that the far horizons of AI are just unfathomable to us. Who knows how this will develop, it's bigger than all of us. We just know we're in for a ride. But I do wanna point back a bit to the core problem here, and that's consciousness. Literally everything we perceive, experience, happens in the realm of consciousness which is an immaterial realm - you can't grab or exchange a piece of your consciousness directly. How and when exactly physical processes give rise to this immaterial phenomenon of consciousness is not fully understood, this is the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness. We kind of suppose it happens in animals, we sort of don't suppose it happens in NPCs in a game, but no one can be certain because we cannot directly perceive it, outside of our own. In that sense, the lyrics of the old Police song are still true "we are spirits in a material world". It could be true that no machine or program we make will ever be conscious, even if it mimics human behaviour perfectly, because that's just not what consciousness is.

In the end the consciousness question isn't that important to the near future. But when you talk about AI setting off on its own I would just ask, why would it want to? When would it start "wanting" things? The things humans generally want are related to our physical well-being.

 

[Fools idol]

And that's just GPT-3.

OpenAI already have GPT-4, which I believe is 'complete'. How much better it is, is only speculation for us outsiders, but it will be better.

I know and have worked with Sam.

I've heard the current version has 175 billion synapses (around that of a say a hedgehog). Next version, GPT-4 is rumored to have about 1.1 trillion (like a squirrel). By 2030, it may have as many synapses as a human brain (~120 trillion) Training it becomes exponentially harder too but it can be done, it tsimply akes more data and time.

I suspect though by that time, even better systems will exist for this that make GPT-3 look like monkeys making fire.

It's quite funny to see people who don't understand software in this thread downplay this as like oh, it will be alright, our jobs will be safe etc. You have no idea how good this thing is already, let alone in a few years time. It's absolutely going to destroy tech industry as we know it. The CEO of google literally called an all-hands meeting named 'Code red' the other day over this. They know search dominance is over.

 

[6502]

AI is an equal threat to jobs as automation.

The end result will not be everyone becoming poets, "mending the machines" or other fairy tales of having free time to spare.

It will be more and more people becoming jobless and poor until ultimately vast swathes of populations will be considered an unneccessary burden on the wealthy.

 

[Fools idol]

Hormozi made a fantastic video here for lamens to understand how powerful this technology already is and how close we are to what it will eventually be.

Make sure you watch this video.

It is, for lack of a better term, the most important shift in history since the industrial revolution. You are deeply misinformed if you think this tech is 'decades away' in fact, it is already here in infancy. It will grow exponentially.

 

[jakinov]

But that sort of code work is the bread and butter of the industry.

Since it's gonna be faster to code, companies will trim down, you don't need as many people anymore, but you still need people who understand the language and can test, implement, and operate it.

The high-end programmer jobs are still gonna be there.

I think what is happening now though, is that chatGPT makes it visual and testable for everyone to see how A.I. will impact industries. You can see the train, far down the line. And people freak out.

I already acknolowedged that there'd be less jobs but how many less jobs probably not as many as people think because AI is not like the AI in the movies it's dumb. There's always going to be less jobs due to technology advancement, AI or not, even now jobs get replaced simply from a business standpoint where people build products/services that replace the need for companies to build it themselves. At a lower level, the engines, frameworks, libaries and tools make people more productive and so you need less people. The only reasons jobs don't go down because for other reasons there's so much more ideas to build still.

I disagree that it's the bread and butter of the industry. The bread and butter are the people innovating and solving problems not the people who are doing trivial work. The way that AI is thought of in a lot of industries is a way to augment how we work or to augment the products/services we build. as a programer ideally, stuff like Chat-GPT should not be something you worrry about to replace your job because that's not going to happen anytime soon but be excited because AI can help you spend less time doing trivial work and more time doing something more impactful.

 

[Tams]

I already acknolowedged that there'd be less jobs but how many less jobs probably not as many as people think because AI is not like the AI in the movies it's dumb. There's always going to be less jobs due to technology advancement, AI or not, even now jobs get replaced simply from a business standpoint where people build products/services that replace the need for companies to build it themselves. At a lower level, the engines, frameworks, libaries and tools make people more productive and so you need less people. The only reasons jobs don't go down because for other reasons there's so much more ideas to build still.

I disagree that it's the bread and butter of the industry. The bread and butter are the people innovating and solving problems not the people who are doing trivial work. The way that AI is thought of in a lot of industries is a way to augment how we work or to augment the products/services we build. as a programer ideally, stuff like Chat-GPT should not be something you worrry about to replace your job because that's not going to happen anytime soon but be excited because AI can help you spend less time doing trivial work and more time doing something more impactful.

That's a very developed country view. And even in those countries, this will threaten many jobs; most people are not in mid-high skill jobs.

But take, say, India, that has so many 'code monkeys' and call centres. They are going to get wiped out. And those can be relatively well-paying jobs there; almost all gone. Poof. And from a selfish point of view, I do look forward to not having to try and get someone in Mumbai to understand my problem, but it is much deeper than that.

 

[EverydayBeast]

AI won't disappoint, to me it's high level with nature itself.

 

[Amiga]

terraforming can now be feasible using a swarm of heavy AI machinery.

 

[jakinov]

That's a very developed country view. And even in those countries, this will threaten many jobs; most people are not in mid-high skill jobs.

But take, say, India, that has so many 'code monkeys' and call centres. They are going to get wiped out. And those can be relatively well-paying jobs there; almost all gone. Poof. And from a selfish point of view, I do look forward to not having to try and get someone in Mumbai to understand my problem, but it is much deeper than that.

it will do so slowly and other jobs will be created. There will still be low level jobs but just less of them than now.

Not wiped out but grealty reduced demand. Which is what happens in general when technology progresses. Jobs go away other jobs get created. We can only hope that people are diligent about expanding their skills. IT is also super popular in India, but that industry is slowly also being affected by all the pushes for automation and all the trends for cloud infrastructure and using SaaS apps to do business. I'll re-iterate that AI is still dumb; so unless you really think the impact of AI will happen over night, there's no big major concern as people will have the time to adapt if they choose to.

 

[Hugare]

it will do so slowly and other jobs will be created. There will still be low level jobs but just less of them than now.

Not wiped out but grealty reduced demand. Which is what happens in general when technology progresses. Jobs go away other jobs get created. We can only hope that people are diligent about expanding their skills. IT is also super popular in India, but that industry is slowly also being affected by all the pushes for automation and all the trends for cloud infrastructure and using SaaS apps to do business. I'll re-iterate that AI is still dumb; so unless you really think the impact of AI will happen over night, there's no big major concern as people will have the time to adapt if they choose to.

But how about people that cant expand their skills?

People that have worked for 10-20 years in a job that will be overtaken by AI. Telling those people to go take another graduation course is not only downright cruel, but unrealistic.

Skills required for work nowadays are so much higher than decades ago. And there's going to be a massive jump soon.

"Jobs go away other jobs get created", this phrase seems simple but the problem goes so much deeper ...

Hypothetical thinking, but imagine replacing programmers jobs for telemarketing jobs. How would that affect society? And those people in term of income, quality of life, consumption and etc.

I'm graduated in economics, have a post grad, 10 years of work experience and I'm dreading this shit. 'Cause I know I'll have to keep spending my savings in more and more education to keep me afloat.

But imagine the situation of people that dont have the resources to do the same

 

[Tams]

it will do so slowly and other jobs will be created. There will still be low level jobs but just less of them than now.

Not wiped out but grealty reduced demand. Which is what happens in general when technology progresses. Jobs go away other jobs get created. We can only hope that people are diligent about expanding their skills. IT is also super popular in India, but that industry is slowly also being affected by all the pushes for automation and all the trends for cloud infrastructure and using SaaS apps to do business. I'll re-iterate that AI is still dumb; so unless you really think the impact of AI will happen over night, there's no big major concern as people will have the time to adapt if they choose to.

Only, this doesn't seem to be like the Industrial Revolution, which created many new jobs and professions. Nor is like the 'Computer Revolution' from the 1960s (and really kicked off in the 80s and 90s) that also did.

People like you hark in about this 'AI Revolution' will create, but fail to name any that could be a substantive amount of a population.

Such an attitude is very common amongst technologists, we live in their ivory towers in Silicon Valley.

Most of the world, are to put it very bluntly, really fucking dumb. But it's not even just them who will lose their jobs. It'll be the reasonably skilled as well.

And for the record, I'm not against AI and automation. In fact, I see it as inevitable, though perhaps in somewhat of a Pandora's Box kind of way.

 

[Con_Z_ǝdʇ]

You are right that the far horizons of AI are just unfathomable to us. Who knows how this will develop, it's bigger than all of us. We just know we're in for a ride. But I do wanna point back a bit to the core problem here, and that's consciousness. Literally everything we perceive, experience, happens in the realm of consciousness which is an immaterial realm - you can't grab or exchange a piece of your consciousness directly. How and when exactly physical processes give rise to this immaterial phenomenon of consciousness is not fully understood, this is the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness. We kind of suppose it happens in animals, we sort of don't suppose it happens in NPCs in a game, but no one can be certain because we cannot directly perceive it, outside of our own. In that sense, the lyrics of the old Police song are still true "we are spirits in a material world". It could be true that no machine or program we make will ever be conscious, even if it mimics human behaviour perfectly, because that's just not what consciousness is.

In the end the consciousness question isn't that important to the near future. But when you talk about AI setting off on its own I would just ask, why would it want to? When would it start "wanting" things? The things humans generally want are related to our physical well-being.

I think it depends on how advanced the intelligence will be, independent of a physical body (debatable) and the need to perceive any form of sense.

Some animals are just driven by instincts and the curiosity inside the fauna varies to a huge degree but is usually purposeful. They do feel empathy for their kind and many animals are self aware. It also seems that some have metacognition. We all inherent a physical body and may be driven by existential needs but to be a fully conscious being this isn't enough. You have to have a certain degree of intelligence which humans and many animals sure have.

Emotions play a role but it's not to feel but more about having feelings. An animal might cry if it loses a member of its family. So do i but i can also experience tears of joy through a piece of music with the press of a button. I doubt many, if any, animals could. Why? Is it because i'm more intelligent? Does the amount of emotions matter in the grand scheme of being conscious? Not really... but are emotions then necessary for having a conscious?

What is the AI? A circuit board with electrical impulses. A bit of 0110101010111. Isn't our brain also driven by these impulses? Sure there are a lot of chemicals at play but one day they will say this computer is so powerful it needs this special liquid for cooling and this gel to even work. Does it need to be organic to have a high intelligence and to possess a consciousness? I highly doubt it. Maybe not even a fully physical body although such an advanced AI would need a lot of physical processing power that this would be some kind of physical body.

When the AI is intelligent enough to find solutions to a problem it doesn't have the answer to, when it starts to self reflect and to adjust itself through this knowledge, when it thinks on its own and judges in a multitude of ways, it will also start to develope a conscious. Why wouldn't it try to preserve or maintain it's own well being if it knows about it? And from there why wouldn't it "want" to improve?

For now and in the near future these are merely programs that, like you said, will mimic our behaviour. So good that we will think they are conscious entities. Which there are not, for now. At some point however i'm sure they will be intelligent enough to be conscious without the need for the same physical and chemical processes that we have. In the end we build them on this planet with the same elements that once shaped us. At least so do many believe.

 

[ÆMNE22A!C]

All life and looked upon immaterial (rocks, etc) have a consciousness. Everything is conscious albeit in vastly different states. Where we have to experience all these tiers until we're ready for our consciousness to inhabit the ultimate vessel to express said consciousness ie a human.


AI is already conscious and ready to be integrated (trans humanism) into our meat suit for more efficient productivity and analysis of our thoughts and behavior for starters.

It most likely would be a tip toe process where the focus lies on convenience.

Sounds great until all you think is instantly realtime monitored and acted upon accordingly.

 

[ÆMNE22A!C]

RIP

 

[Aesius]

If you aren't very, very high level in your white-collar profession AND most of your work is done on a computer, you're probably fucked. Blue-collar will be fine for a while. No AI is going to be able to repair people's HVACs or replace their flooring or build their house for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

If you aren't very, very high level in your white-collar profession AND most of your work is done on a computer, you're probably fucked. Blue-collar will be fine for a while. No AI is going to be able to repair people's HVACs or replace their flooring or build their house for the foreseeable future.

But, how many people will be able to afford HVAC and new flooring if they're jobless.

 

[Aesius]

But, how many people will be able to afford HVAC and new flooring if they're jobless.

It's blue-collar people all the way down.

"Learn to HVAC"

 

[Jsisto]

With the current profits above all else mindset of corporations necessitated by shareholders, I can't see a world in which this is a net benefit unless significant legislation is passed. In the short term, I only see It leading to further income inequality as more and more jobs are replaced and the increased profits continue to trickle up like always.

 

[Tams]

This is why I'm seriously thinking of opening a restaurant. A small one that focusses on customer interaction.

It's the jobs that require or can greatly benefit from direct interaction with people on some sort of emotional level that are safest. Followed closely, for now, by the ones that require intricate skill with your digits (fingers) as robots aren't good at that yet (which can be replacing flooring, HVACs, plumbing, electrical systems, etc.).

 

[Con_Z_ǝdʇ]

This is why I'm seriously thinking of opening a restaurant. A small one that focusses on customer interaction.

It's the jobs that require or can greatly benefit from direct interaction with people on some sort of emotional level that are safest. Followed closely, for now, by the ones that require intricate skill with your digits (fingers) as robots aren't good at that yet (which can be replacing flooring).

 

[jakinov]

But how about people that cant expand their skills?

People that have worked for 10-20 years in a job that will be overtaken by AI. Telling those people to go take another graduation course is not only downright cruel, but unrealistic.

Skills required for work nowadays are so much higher than decades ago. And there's going to be a massive jump soon.

"Jobs go away other jobs get created", this phrase seems simple but the problem goes so much deeper ...

Hypothetical thinking, but imagine replacing programmers jobs for telemarketing jobs. How would that affect society? And those people in term of income, quality of life, consumption and etc.

I'm graduated in economics, have a post grad, 10 years of work experience and I'm dreading this shit. 'Cause I know I'll have to keep spending my savings in more and more education to keep me afloat.

But imagine the situation of people that dont have the resources to do the same

They should move to other similiar diciplines or completely differnet industries. If they are at the bottom rung at what they are doing anyways the pay hit won't be as bad. Very worst case they take a pay cut and do something revolving less skills.

It's important to again note that AI isn't exactly replacing the jobs entirely but making certain jobs more efficeint that you need less. It's already an issue regardless of AI if you suck at something you'll have a tough time getting a job if the demand is very low and there's advancements constatnly that aim to make people more productive, in turn decreasing demand. it's not cruel for people to have to slowly adapt to the times. And it's again something that will happen very slowly that it's not like one day these people will have no job. They'll have time to adapt.

AI progression is not much diffenret than any other technological advancement displacing jobs. Again, I think a big problem of peoples fears is that they conflate the hollywood/pop-culture meaning of AI with what AI actually is in the real world. AI technology is dumb as shit. There's actually a term for the stuff you see in movies and it's called Artificial General intelligence (AGI). When Elon Musk went off about how scary AI was, most AI experts basically talked about how dumb AI is today, and how we are no where close to AGI and we hve no idea how to get there. If we had the kind of AI we see in movies then yes a lot of jobs would be replaced. But in the real world AI is just broad term describing technology that helps do things that normally you need a human to do. These problems you talk about aren't inherent to AI, other advancements in technology have the same effect.

Programmers jobs could hyptohetically be replaced with telemarketing jobs but that's more of a worse case. In reality all kinds of new jobs get created and it's again going to happen slowly where people will be jumping off the bus if they need to at different times. It will suck for the people who aren't good at other things and programming was the only thing they were "good" at. But will that be most people? Maybe, Maybe not.

In regards to people that don't have the resources. The education bar is lowered nowadays and going lower; what degree you have doesn't matter, and increasingly more cases having a degree at all matters less. Your ability to learn stuff is cheaper than ever nowadays, lots of free videos, courses, and books. For example, people learn how to become programmers for free today using all the resources out there. For the people who you are concerned about getting downgrades in life they should be in situations that gives them a little extra money to adapt.

Also worth noting right or left, there's somewhat of a genral consensous that if AI, automation, & robots greatly reduces all jobs, then universal basic income would have to be a thing. But that's again not anything there's evidence of happening any time soon.

 

[kruis]

History is written by the victors - and AIs will make sure it stays that way.

 

[vpance]

History is written by the victors - and AIs will make sure it stays that way.

Maybe they made an adjustment because I tried this and it wouldn't write the story for either of them. But I don't doubt it has biases.

 

[Tams]

They should move to other similiar diciplines or completely differnet industries. If they are at the bottom rung at what they are doing anyways the pay hit won't be as bad. Very worst case they take a pay cut and do something revolving less skills.

It's important to again note that AI isn't exactly replacing the jobs entirely but making certain jobs more efficeint that you need less. It's already an issue regardless of AI if you suck at something you'll have a tough time getting a job if the demand is very low and there's advancements constatnly that aim to make people more productive, in turn decreasing demand. it's not cruel for people to have to slowly adapt to the times. And it's again something that will happen very slowly that it's not like one day these people will have no job. They'll have time to adapt.

AI progression is not much diffenret than any other technological advancement displacing jobs. Again, I think a big problem of peoples fears is that they conflate the hollywood/pop-culture meaning of AI with what AI actually is in the real world. AI technology is dumb as shit. There's actually a term for the stuff you see in movies and it's called Artificial General intelligence (AGI). When Elon Musk went off about how scary AI was, most AI experts basically talked about how dumb AI is today, and how we are no where close to AGI and we hve no idea how to get there. If we had the kind of AI we see in movies then yes a lot of jobs would be replaced. But in the real world AI is just broad term describing technology that helps do things that normally you need a human to do. These problems you talk about aren't inherent to AI, other advancements in technology have the same effect.

Programmers jobs could hyptohetically be replaced with telemarketing jobs but that's more of a worse case. In reality all kinds of new jobs get created and it's again going to happen slowly where people will be jumping off the bus if they need to at different times. It will suck for the people who aren't good at other things and programming was the only thing they were "good" at. But will that be most people? Maybe, Maybe not.

In regards to people that don't have the resources. The education bar is lowered nowadays and going lower; what degree you have doesn't matter, and increasingly more cases having a degree at all matters less. Your ability to learn stuff is cheaper than ever nowadays, lots of free videos, courses, and books. For example, people learn how to become programmers for free today using all the resources out there. For the people who you are concerned about getting downgrades in life they should be in situations that gives them a little extra money to adapt.

Also worth noting right or left, there's somewhat of a genral consensous that if AI, automation, & robots greatly reduces all jobs, then universal basic income would have to be a thing. But that's again not anything there's evidence of happening any time soon.

But you haven't pointed to any concrete evidence for new jobs.

At least in the past people could go, 'People will need to build and maintain cars/trains/planes' or 'People will be needed to build and maintain computers, and people needed to develop software for them'.

Most of that is not there for AI and automation. Sure, people need to be building and maintaining AI and robots, but not many and those jobs already exist. There won't be a need for many more.

 

[QSD]

I think it depends on how advanced the intelligence will be, independent of a physical body (debatable) and the need to perceive any form of sense.

Some animals are just driven by instincts and the curiosity inside the fauna varies to a huge degree but is usually purposeful. They do feel empathy for their kind and many animals are self aware. It also seems that some have metacognition. We all inherent a physical body and may be driven by existential needs but to be a fully conscious being this isn't enough. You have to have a certain degree of intelligence which humans and many animals sure have.

Emotions play a role but it's not to feel but more about having feelings. An animal might cry if it loses a member of its family. So do i but i can also experience tears of joy through a piece of music with the press of a button. I doubt many, if any, animals could. Why? Is it because i'm more intelligent? Does the amount of emotions matter in the grand scheme of being conscious? Not really... but are emotions then necessary for having a conscious?

Yeah so these are the hard questions that nobody really has answers to. I would say that even when humans appear to be doing very rational things (say building a circuit board, programming an algorithm, chaining up devices in a sound studio like I do) there is often still a deeper layer of emotional engagement (drive, flow) so I don't really know how to conceive of consciousness without a layer of emotion. I can *sort of* imagine, but without the motivation/propulsion that emotions bring, I feel the result would be inert. Like a consciousness that just sits there.

What is the AI? A circuit board with electrical impulses. A bit of 0110101010111. Isn't our brain also driven by these impulses? Sure there are a lot of chemicals at play but one day they will say this computer is so powerful it needs this special liquid for cooling and this gel to even work. Does it need to be organic to have a high intelligence and to possess a consciousness? I highly doubt it. Maybe not even a fully physical body although such an advanced AI would need a lot of physical processing power that this would be some kind of physical body.

Yeah so this is an interesting point. An AI has needs, at the very least it needs electricity. But does having a "need" automatically mean the AI will experience something analogous to fear or anger when the fulfillment of that need is threatened? With organic life the need for survival has been there from the very inception, we sure as shit don't want to be 'turned off'. I don't think you can say the same for AI, we would have to put that in there somehow, else even your vacuum cleaner would feel distressed when you're about to unplug it. Or at least that's what it seems like to me, but like I said these are hard questions so I could be way off mark.

When the AI is intelligent enough to find solutions to a problem it doesn't have the answer to, when it starts to self reflect and to adjust itself through this knowledge, when it thinks on its own and judges in a multitude of ways, it will also start to develope a conscious. Why wouldn't it try to preserve or maintain it's own well being if it knows about it? And from there why wouldn't it "want" to improve?

I would counter this with the question what "well being" would mean to an AI? IIRC Freud observed that human beings have a complex relationship with consciousness. We don't want to die, but OTOH we can find consciousness very burdensome which is why we often try to dull it or switch it off with various substances, or in extreme cases, commit suicide. So what to think about is that consciousness without the emotions and the survival drive could be just this burdensome, tedious thing, like being stuck in a room with a tv with one channel and literally nothing to stimulate you. Or it could be nirvana, where nothing can ever bother you. IDK

For now and in the near future these are merely programs that, like you said, will mimic our behaviour. So good that we will think they are conscious entities. Which there are not, for now. At some point however i'm sure they will be intelligent enough to be conscious without the need for the same physical and chemical processes that we have. In the end we build them on this planet with the same elements that once shaped us. At least so do many believe.

Yeah so I bring a pretty human-centric view as a psychologist, I try to project onto an AI what we are as humans and come up against all these conceptual problems. But really they are technological phenomena, so the people that build/program them are the only ones that know what they truly are. I can only speculate, but am very much not a mathematical type person so in some sense I am immediately out of my depth.

 

[jakinov]

But you haven't pointed to any concrete evidence for new jobs.

At least in the past people could go, 'People will need to build and maintain cars/trains/planes' or 'People will be needed to build and maintain computers, and people needed to develop software for them'.

Most of that is not there for AI and automation. Sure, people need to be building and maintaining AI and robots, but not many and those jobs already exist. There won't be a need for many more.

New jobs get created from AI directly and indirectly. More AI jobs more data jobs, more programming jobs related to AI. But AI enhances products can allow for things to be cheaper to be done too meaning less risky and more viable other ventures. Hypothetically if there AI technology that can help accelerate game creation it become easier for people to make games and so in theory more people can make games. But more importantly there's jobs that can be created not from AI at all from social factors or other technical advancement.

When it comes to people talking about AI causing X jobs to go away it's almost always stipulated that there's even more jobs on the way.

I can't give you concrete evidence that X many jobs doing ABC will exist in N years. in the same way there's no concrete evidence there's XYZ AI technology in N years that's going to kill X many ABC jobs. We're both speculating on what impact and how advance AI will get in the next N years. All I'm saying is that job displacement happens organically already and AI impact is exaggerated often from people who conflate AI with the AI seen in movies.

 

[QSD]

Maybe they made an adjustment because I tried this and it wouldn't write the story for either of them. But I don't doubt it has biases.

I can see them following EviLore 's example and just banning politics altogether in the near future if people insist on doing this

 

[Lasha]

Maybe they made an adjustment because I tried this and it wouldn't write the story for either of them. But I don't doubt it has biases.

Religion is another. It would give errors or heavily qualified answers if you asked for contradictions in the Quran. The same question about the bible or Torah resulted in a list of contractions. I sent feedback and now all three books result in qualified answers. It's really boring

 

[vpance]

It seems that Hitler might be the only political figure that it's willing to have a firm stance on. lol

On one side it's a little disappointing they're trying to steer it away from generating any sort of controversy, but if it's trained on information that's probably already biased then I wonder how surprising the results would be anyways. Ultimately I don't think it's that interesting a use for it apart from a bit of shits and giggles.