Idleyes
Gold Member
As a black man, I find this image instinctively pleasing. And it has little to do with that scrumptious looking piece of chicken. Ok I'm lying IT DOES!
Are you picturing a terminator scenario? Men vs. machines?
People will adapt, inevitably. It's not like there won't be jobs available, but certain jobs will become obsolete, which is great, because we're going to need more teachers, caretakers, nurses, streetworkers et cetera anyway, everything that relies heavily on human to human interaction.
Jungling numbers on wallstreet? That's nothing a good A.I. can't do. And hopefully economies will shift to paying the really relevant jobs better. Currently, the most relevant jobs to keep this society alive are the worst paid jobs. People who clean the streets, take care of the elderly or teach children are among the worst paid jobs in my country. Compared to managers in small to medium sized businesses, who sit at their desk most of the time.
I'm currently also working at a desk, but I'm pretty sure I'll be back in a kitchen as a chef in the next few years, people need food, I'm a certified chef, that's manual labour but I guess more future-proof than being dependent on a desk job.
It means that in 50 years, publishers will use "Made by real people" as a selling point.
Culture massively prefer craft over art, and who created craft - human or machine irrelevant for mass market. Same as with goods - many goods created by robots and people don't complain about this, it's even considered higher quality than goods done by cheap labor
Emotions for who? Electronics Engineer will be pissed yes, same as many others before him.Some of you guys are missing the point. If A.I. and robotics are taking human's jobs at the rate Yoko is saying here.....that will create a different emotion than any current level of automation we've seen so far. Self-checkout at your local Wal-Mart is NOTHING, compared to an Electronics Engineer losing his job to A.I. Those are two TOTALLY different things!
"I also think that all game creators will lose their jobs due to AI," he told the outlet (translated). In 50 years, game creators may be treated like bards."
Emotions for who? Electronics Engineer will be pissed yes, same as many others before him.
There are not much difference between cashier guy, accountant/documents guy, engineer or equity trader. Still a job lost to certain stage of automatization. Engineer certainly not most special or most paid job who got fall victim to this.
There is none. A job lost is a job lost.You've got to be kidding me.......You know there's a difference between those "types" of jobs.
A cashier making $30K a year at Walmart having his job taken away by self-checkout machines is sizably different that a Paralegal losing her job. And that's sizably different than a Equity Trader losing his job. All people should be treated fairly, but lets not act like all jobs loses are the same.
Nobody cared before, no one will care now, no one will care in the next stages of automatization whatever they will be.- Either way, if MOST of these people lose their jobs to A.I. and robots, then they'll all collectively act out against it in the future. They'll be "Only Humans" job openings, where companies pitch to their audience that they are Pro-Human.
- It'll be similar to how DEI was supposed to help increase diversity with job hirings. But that was pushed back by other humans that didn't like that push for what ever reason.
There is none. A job lost is a job lost.
People acting like what's going now is something extra special just because some creative jobs were affected and we live in era of internet where anyone can loudly whine on internet. But it's not really that special - a lot of white collar jobs were lost in 1st stage of IT automatization with rise of CRM, ERP, EDMS etc systems. And many more, included jobs considered very high profile like equity trader - with massive onset of internet. It's just a cycle of life - some job gets phased out, some new ones like data scientist slowly crawled in.
Take IT business analyst for example - 20 years ago it was a sophisticated job. Now half of them working as living translators who simply can translate back and forth what business people wants and what IT people understands (and funnily I don't think these people will be affected much by AI rise). I am sure 100% there will be a separate class of people whose job will be to construct AI query to get a proper results based on very vague "I want it to be awesome" by business people.
Nobody cared before, no one will care now, no one will care in the next stages of automatization whatever they will be.
This sounds like some real desperate energy, man. Reminds me of last Friday , I'm speeding home, 15 over, when a bike cop tears outta nowhere and tails me for like 3 miles. Right as I'm pulling into my driveway, he hits the lights. I panic, throw my wallet on the ground and yell, 'HERE'S MY ID! I'LL BE RIGHT BACK!' and bolt inside.
Cop's outside calling in numbers, I'm thinking awe fuck, back up type shit. I shout from inside, 'I'M TAKING A SHIT! I'M SORRY, I REALLY HAD TO GO! YOU CAN COME IN, THE DOOR'S OPEN!' He yells back, 'You doing what?!' I say it louder, feeling like we on some negotiation shit.
Anywho, After the pressure's off, I slide out with my hands up, pants halfway secure. Cop's chillin' by his bike, cracking up. Nigga said he just wanted to tell me I left my phone on the fucking roof and some ole I'm lucky he had his body cam off type shit.
The difference is scale.There is none. A job lost is a job lost.
Dead ass serious.Please tell me you joking.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yeah, sure, countries will make a laws that limit their competitiveness with others. And other countries will follow the suit because it's fair. It so work for other stuff.I think you are missing the point, sadly. It's not just jobs are being replaced. It's the "AMOUNT" of jobs and "TYPES" of jobs that are being replaced. You act as if laws can't be created, international pacts can't be signed, etc to slow things like this down. To think no one will care, means are aren't paying attention to what's going on today with civil unrest.
Sorry, but you need to wake up!
There is no difference in scale. As before some jobs will be replaced, and not all of it but like 60-80%, someone need to check results and be responsible for errors in it, most advanced stuff practically never replaced as their part of work too complex and often require human interaction.The difference is scale.
The moment one can reliably replace an engineer with AI, they can replace all of them, at once, with no delay.
There's no training to adapt to, no transition period, it just eliminates an entire industry overnight.
I admire your optimism.You act as if laws can't be created, international pacts can't be signed, etc to slow things like this down. To think no one will care, means are aren't paying attention to what's going on today with civil unrest.
Sorry, but you need to wake up!
I admire your optimism.
I don't think no one will care. People will care a lot. Just like people care a lot about climate change. Laws can be created, international pacts can be signed... but how's that going?
When governments and powerful organisations care more about productivity and vested interests, they don't act in the interests of the people.
That is where we are today (well not replacement rate - but capabilities).As before some jobs will be replaced, and not all of it but like 60-80%, someone need to check results and be responsible for errors in it, most advanced stuff practically never replaced as their part of work too complex and often require human interaction.
This is where we are today - people are learning to adopt and build infrastructure for current (limited) scope of what GenAI can do.And it will not happen overnight, people might be fired overnight, the same happened before, but process of adaptation will take years, companies need to adopt technology, build infrastructure for it, hire support people, adapt business processes with all their documentation etc. And only after it ready, job starts to get reduced in a grand scale. This process is slow for big companies.
That's a hypothetical in of itself. If most jobs that require human intelligent reasoning/knowledge are lost (once you can independently replace one, which was what I alluded in my original post - there are no avenues to retrain as AI will always adapt much faster than humans will), we're at least looking at mass scale-reduction of global workforce - but possibly one that will just continue.And for some jobs lost some new created.
I work close to technology and also as a manager who do this decision about replace people with AI (and it's actually go for several years already)That is where we are today (well not replacement rate - but capabilities).
I was specifically referencing actually replacing human capabilities - it's fine if you assume Gen AI has plateaued and we're not advancing meaningfully from here - but that's just an assumption and not the argument posed around this possible automation drive.
We are light years away from this. To AI takes on CEO the society should change and it's unlikely in a near future.This is where we are today - people are learning to adopt and build infrastructure for current (limited) scope of what GenAI can do.
In hypothetical structure where you 'trust' your agents to let loose - most of that is redundant as you're literally only checking end-outputs, which sure - might require human testers for foreseeable future - but you've eliminated the need for every other job at that point, CEO included.
Not really. Usefull AI implementation in real world tasks even harder than normal automatization. It has still the same problem of inability of most of human-to-human interaction (it doesn't go and ask advice from seniors) and lacks consistency normal automation has.As to the 'overnight' the whole point is it can be done at push of a button 'when ready' - unlike automation based on complex machinery or redesigning workflows at scale (which is what you're describing). Yes there will still be a lag as companies adopt this - but once (if) it starts, it'll move faster than anything else we've ever seen, by orders of magnitude.
There is a complexity/cost factor. The dynamic ultimately different that allows human to undercut AIThat's a hypothetical in of itself. If most jobs that require human intelligent reasoning/knowledge are lost (once you can independently replace one, which was what I alluded in my original post - there are no avenues to retrain as AI will always adapt much faster than humans will), we're at least looking at mass scale-reduction of global workforce - but possibly one that will just continue.
If every company replaces people with AI, people will have no jobs, no money and who will buy their products?
![]()
Nah. More doomsday talk. The robots are going to take over! It's like 1950s SF.
AI is not creative, except in the most crude way. It cannot create beauty, just regurgitate it. AI just does what programmers (not exactly "creatives") tell it to do. That's not to say AI will not replace many jobs in the industry. However, he said "all," including the ones at the top, the originators. That's what I disagree with.
I wonder how much of this pessimism comes from our materialistic, mechanical, soulless view of who we are and what life is. Sad. It matches Toro's apparent philosophy, so I'm not surprised he talks like this.
Admittedly, if any "art form" is most vulnerable to being supplanted by AI, it would be videogames. No offense to our hobby, but it's the least artistic/creative of the bunch, the most mechanical, the shallowest and least 'human' of the arts.
Most people are not creative (and most are more stupid than you think, if you look, but I digress), so most 'AI' now is more 'creative' than a lot of people.
There's also the issue of creative saturation. Even without AI, we may well be reaching the extent of what is creatively possible. Stories are recycled (how many Shakespeare stories are the basis for modern stories - and did they even originate with Shakespeare - unlikely).
Now, laziness will always trump that; so the repetitiveness we see now may well be due to that. The time will come though, when all the good combinations of paint, melodies, words, etc. will be found.
That seems to me like a very reductive view of art - just combining parts, as if it's one big mechanical exercise. (Again, to clarify, I'm speaking of art in the capital A sense, not the trivial sense of generating images or formulaic prose). You're free to hold that view, of course, but I see things much differently. Shakespeare or any great artist does a lot more than just combine parts that other people invented earlier.
Like I said earlier, I suspect that these mechanical, reductionist views of art are a reflection of the impoverishment of our culture. I also think it's interesting that these pronouncements usually come from tech guys, who tend to be heavily "left brained," for lack of a better word. They are speaking out of their own rather narrow, pinched perspective. (I don't know if that fits you, I'm just making a generalization.)