221–230 of 563 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is talking about 15$ an hour data labeling and I’m pretty sure you know that. Being obtuse on purpose. If you’re actively replacing people’s jobs rather than helping people… well, you’ve got to look at yourself in the mirror every night.
The entire software industry is based on replacing jobs with more efficient alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol. Nobody is choking on smoke. The earth is fine. Humans may make life slightly more difficult for themselves in the next century or two due to global warming, but those difficulties will be more than offset by advances in technology, even under pessimistic assumptions.
No one except most Canadians, the West Coast, Midwest, and Northeast of the US. And Texas too apparently: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/environm... Is there anywhere in the continental US not affected by wildfire smoke? Hawaii is probably doing alright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mean quality of life is irrelevant if the mode quality of life is only a tenth of that.
The mode quality of life is also sky high compared to 100 years ago. So is the median quality of life. Mode and median were raised even faster than the average. Humanity managed to uplift a huge fraction of people out of extreme poverty. In 1820s around 70-80% people lived in extreme poverty In 1920s it was around 60-70% In 2020s it's around 10% source: e.g. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e20f2f1a-en/index.html?…
> At the same time, the drop in global poverty after 1995 is the largest observed, despite the low correlation with GDP per capita. This implies a “lost opportunity”, for even faster poverty reduction could have been achieved if measures had been taken to contain increasing within-country income inequality
Which I feel this is the topic at hand.
Income inequality clearly impacts both local and global poverty.
Production efficiency also has a positive impact, you can produce and serve more people for cheaper. Yes, but that implies the efficacy of production benefits people equally, otherwise there are "lost opportunity" in poverty reduction.
This is what the "outrage" is here. It doesn't seem like AI support benefits the merchants or the workers, but exclusively the executives and shareholders.
And this is the challenge that face AI. At face value, it's great technology, that could help everyone, but will it benefit everyone equally, or will there be losers here?
If we want AI to be more positively received, that question needs to be addressed seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logical conclusion that people don’t like to hear is that there will need to be a fundamental restructuring of the economy. AI will, in the not so distant future, eliminate the vast majority of jobs. The choice will then be between a socialized economy or barbarism.
[flagged]
If the promise of AI means I can do 1/2 the amount of work and maintain my high quality life, then I'm all for it. However, every advancement that has come in the last 100 years that improved efficiency has only meant we're pushed to work more and do more. So I am now expected to do 2x the work. If you're really dreaming for AI that can wipe-out entire classes of decent middle-class jobs in one big swing, don't forge…
The logical conclusion that people don’t like to hear is that there will need to be a fundamental restructuring of the economy. AI will, in the not so distant future, eliminate the vast majority of jobs. The choice will then be between a socialized economy or barbarism.
I don't think AI is going to replace everything either. It will be a cheap knockoff replacement for a lot of decent low paying middle class jobs, enough to do real damage, but not catastrophic. We will be forced to adapt like we always do and the wealth disparity continues to widens like it has been.
I guess if anything, we'll make life so efficient that people will start to question if we need our life to be so efficient. There comes a point when you start having diminishing returns on all that efficiency. We'll still have the same problems we always do, with bad relationship breakups, or addiction, or whatever. AI will never fix those things.
So in my mind, the logical conclusion is just a march toward mediocrity and feeling handcuffed to whatever situation you were born into.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But they simply aren't designed for a full shopping cart which includes a ton of non-barcoded items. Huh. Everything at my grocery store either has a barcode or is produce that needs to be weighed, so there's no speed advantage for a cashier. And they've gone through different sizes of self-checkout, some of which actually had more room than the cashier checkouts.
> produce that needs to be weighed In Spain and France (and probably other countries too) they’ve been doing something that’s pretty neat in regards to the fruits and vegetables since long before self-checkout even became a thing, but which helps a lot now with self-checkout as well. When you go to the fruits and vegetables section of the store, a lot of these stores have a scale there with a printer. So when you pic…
1. Put product in bag
2. At the checkout, suddenly remember that you have to label it yourself
3. Go back to the fruit and veg section
4. Try to find the 2 to 4 digit number that denotes said product
5. Wait your turn to use one of the two scales, more usually the single functioning one
6. Realise you've forgotten the number and go find it again
7. Repeat steps 5 and 6 as required.
8. Print label and return to checkout
It is the antithesis of neat, and just because they don't want to install scales at the checkout.
Of course after a few years they actually got scales at the checkout, probably because all checkout systems had them and they were no longer and option, but now the cheap and barely functioning self-checkout systems have no (functioning) scales, so back to self-labeling hell.
Automation has always been a scary threat for losing jobs for the last 30-40 years. While LLM might be different, there's almost certainly even more in the next 5-10 years we haven't imagined yet.
If the promise of AI means I can do 1/2 the amount of work and maintain my high quality life, then I'm all for it. However, every advancement that has come in the last 100 years that improved efficiency has only meant we're pushed to work more and do more. So I am now expected to do 2x the work. If you're really dreaming for AI that can wipe-out entire classes of decent middle-class jobs in one big swing, don't forge…
The logical conclusion that people don’t like to hear is that there will need to be a fundamental restructuring of the economy. AI will, in the not so distant future, eliminate the vast majority of jobs. The choice will then be between a socialized economy or barbarism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logical conclusion that people don’t like to hear is that there will need to be a fundamental restructuring of the economy. AI will, in the not so distant future, eliminate the vast majority of jobs. The choice will then be between a socialized economy or barbarism.
[flagged]