Support NeoGAF

[Idleyes]

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!

 

[PendekarRajawali]

If every company replaces people with AI, people will have no jobs, no money and who will buy their products?

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

Adapt to what? If 80% of all human jobs go to robots and A.I., then what's there to adapt to.

- People need to earn money for a living
- People need a sense of self-worth and ownership in their lives
- All the people are saying jobs like being a teacher, caretaker, and streetworkers will be given to robots by the year 2040. No later than 2050!
- All over the world you're seeing people going "Anti-Immigration" do to a crabs-in-a-barrel mentality and some job loses

It means that in 50 years, publishers will use "Made by real people" as a selling point.

Oh okay, that's good. I feel like that will start happening in 20 years or less LOL!

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

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!

 

[Felessan]

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!

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.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

"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."

Kamiya must at this moment be foaming at his mouth with fury. xD

 

[Sooner]

All? Never.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

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.

- 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.

Have any of you guys played the Detroit Become Human game?

 

[Felessan]

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.

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.

- 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.

Nobody cared before, no one will care now, no one will care in the next stages of automatization whatever they will be.

 

[BennyBlanco]

He's probably right for all the technical aspects like coding if you stretch the timeline far enough.

 

[Idleyes]

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.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

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!

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

Please tell me you joking.

 

[Fafalada]

There is none. A job lost is a job lost.

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.

 

[Idleyes]

Please tell me you joking.

Dead ass serious.

 

[Felessan]

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!

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.
Theoretically it can be in ideal and altruistic world, pragmatically will never happens.
You know, even military AI that far more dangerous and impactful, currently off the table. And if countries can't reach agreement on military AI, chances that there will be a significant common AI limitations are slim.

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.

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.
Look at documents guys - rise of EDMS "should" eliminate all of them. In reality a lot was redundand but some stayed - someone has to check that formal documents follow corporate guidelines on formal language used and some has to deal with paper documents those also stayed as some documents also stayed on paper.
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.

And for some jobs lost some new created. Companies doesn't really gets smaller with all those job reduction. Take IT for example - 25-30 years ago it was tiny, a company of 1000 people had like 20 people for everything, from infrastructure to development and user support. Now it's often the biggest department of a company with hundreds of people in it (and a lot of companies are IT companies where most of stuff are IT people). Market will adapt, and yes, those who got hit by current way will need to adjust and find a new sphere of work.

 

[Trogdor1123]

To be fair, there will always be humans required to some degree in this work but the numbers will drop significantly. Once we can make our own games I will drop even more. I sure wouldn't enter the industry right now.

 

[bad guy]

Current AI doesn't create anything new. It learns from what has been done before. Let's see AI create a new genre.

 

[consoul]

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.

 

[simpatico]

He's not wrong. It's coming for a lot of white collar jobs. Everyone thought tech would decimate blue collar stuff. It seems it's coming for the white collar first. Who needs an electrical engineer anymore when you could just enter parameters and an electrical safety code into a trained AI and have it generate schematics? Who needs a lawyer to prepare your divorce or will documents now? Wild frontier ahead

 

[Zathalus]

The current crop of LLMs already show signs of progress slowing down, while development and associated costs are spiralling. Using it on a daily basis for coding and it's both amazing at how well it functions and how well it doesn't function. Hallucinations, especially on just released APIs, occur at a rather alarming rate. It's a very nice tool, but certainly isn't replacing anyone halfway competent in coding at least. What it does do, is enhance the productivity of any coder immensely. I no longer need to always deep dive into developer documentation, look up esoteric functions I only use once in a blue moon, or search through endless stack overflow posts for the question to my problem. Although sometimes I do, because LLMs are hardly 100% reliable. LGTM to prod with untested AI code is one way to get fired very quickly.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

You're not wrong. I'm just hoping (aka rooting) for the best in mankind, when the death of our civilization as we know it is at stake.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Might as well add this new response from Yoko Taro to the OP as well.

 

[Humdinger]

"My predictions about the future are almost always wrong, so don't worry about it." - Yoko Taro. lol. I like that.

Reminds me of Yogi Berra's line, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

i was listening to my music feed and this pop up:

90% of art/design is just entertainment at best/ advertisement/ distraction-escapism or some kind of social experience.

A lot of people have this romantic idea about the creative process, which only applies to the first 10% of ideation. The rest involves a lot of effort, talent, expertise to achieve something meaningful.

the use of A.I. for the entire creation or as the driving force behind it, is not really something especial and will show in the final outcome (just as it's shows with subpar art/design).

something that says Yoko Taro (about making a living as a "creator")

As an individual (and this goes beyond just being a "creator"; it applies to areas like programming too) you should grind through the "wax on, wax off" phase. But in the labor market, implementing AI will be a must.

 

[Fafalada]

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

And for some jobs lost some new created.

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.

 

[Felessan]

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.

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)
There is a gist - AI can replace a general, like a profession up to certain level where tasks bears high degree of similarity. You can't replace a particular person, at current state it's economically inefficient. So anyone high enough to have unique knowledge, unique connection, ability to solve once in decade problem from ground up - they are safe at current and current foreseeable state of technology

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.

We are light years away from this. To AI takes on CEO the society should change and it's unlikely in a near future.
Managers job is about taking responsibility among other stuff and AI as a tool hardly can be into this role. Someone and it should be human, will have to take a blame if AI fuck up something (and it will do as it also not perfect)

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.

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.

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.

There is a complexity/cost factor. The dynamic ultimately different that allows human to undercut AI
Humans trains by themselves for most part and companies pays for result. In AI you always pay for training no matter whether it's usefull or not.

Just look at robot automatization - it does reduce number of jobs but it doesn't remove manual labor. Some manual labor so cheap that's it economic inefficient to replace it with robots.

 

[Idleyes]

If every company replaces people with AI, people will have no jobs, no money and who will buy their products?

AI will be both the worker and buyer. We'll just enjoy consuming.

Edit: Post-labor, post-scarcity society
Edit2: I think this is what the confederacy fought for.
Edit3: They just chose the wrong people for AI.
Edit4: They fucked around and found out the intelligence wasn't artificial.

 

[Tams]

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.

 

[Humdinger]

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.)

 

[Tams]

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.)

That's just what it is. Some are just better at and have a nack for combining the parts and recognising patterns. Some are exceptional.

I understand the appeal of believing there's more too it, but that's irrational and oblivious.