141–150 of 694 posts
I have said repeatedly that when AI eliminates the need for human creativity and work, the only thing left as the natural domain of humans will be bloodshed. The fact that we're using AI killer robots to wipe each other out in droves doesn't bode well for that future does it...
If AI eliminates the need for creativity and work, it means that our creativity and work are not meaningful enough to warrant survival. I don't think we're anywhere near that point.
I have said repeatedly that when AI eliminates the need for human creativity and work, the only thing left as the natural domain of humans will be bloodshed. The fact that we're using AI killer robots to wipe each other out in droves doesn't bode well for that future does it...
Yeah, this is not happening anytime soon. Have you even looked at AI-generated code or text? AI is just a dumb parrot, it's no match for human effort and creativity even in these "easy" domains.
The business case for AI generation is just being able to generate huge amounts of unusable slop for next to nothing. For skilled workers it's a minor advantage in that they get a sloppy first draft that they can start the real work on - it makes their work a bit more creative than it used to be, by getting rid of the most tedious stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magic or no, ultimately "AI" leads to labour displacement and it's just a continuation of the much broader trend of automation driven by computers. Labour displacement leads to an erosion of standards of living and in a world that ties purpose to work is an existential threat on a very practical level. It was always going to be met with violence once it became more than a curiosity for tinkerers.
>Labour displacement leads to an erosion of standards of living The two biggest labor displacements in human history were the agricultural and industrial revolutions, both of which resulted in enormous gains in human living standards. Can you think of a mass labor displacement that resulted in an overall erosion of living standards? I cannot.
Then there's the minor issue of AI deciding to just wipe us out because we're in the way.
Taking everything together, AI more powerful than that which currently exists must not be created. This needs to be enforced with an international treaty, nuking data centers in non-compliant states if need be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magic or no, ultimately "AI" leads to labour displacement and it's just a continuation of the much broader trend of automation driven by computers. Labour displacement leads to an erosion of standards of living and in a world that ties purpose to work is an existential threat on a very practical level. It was always going to be met with violence once it became more than a curiosity for tinkerers.
>Labour displacement leads to an erosion of standards of living The two biggest labor displacements in human history were the agricultural and industrial revolutions, both of which resulted in enormous gains in human living standards. Can you think of a mass labor displacement that resulted in an overall erosion of living standards? I cannot.
We are in an inverse innovators dilemma Automaters dilemma: the labor that is removed from production due to automation can no longer sustain the market’s that that automater was trying to make more efficient. By optimizing just the production half of the economy and not the consumption half you end up breaking the market
I’m convinced that 70% of the workforce of some large organisations is just white collar welfare / adult day care already. Maybe that goes to 80+% as a result of “AI” but doesn’t fundamentally change the model.
Good luck doing nothing of value in a restaurant with 20 employees.
I have said repeatedly that when AI eliminates the need for human creativity and work, the only thing left as the natural domain of humans will be bloodshed. The fact that we're using AI killer robots to wipe each other out in droves doesn't bode well for that future does it...
If AI eliminates the need for creativity and work, it means that our creativity and work are not meaningful enough to warrant survival. I don't think we're anywhere near that point.
The worst part is that AI's first casualties are jobs that no one really asked to kill. AI is killing writing, music, art, and coding. I've done all of these voluntarily because I simply enjoyed them Meanwhile the parts of my existence that I actually hate - dealing with customer support, handling government forms, dealing with taxes - is far from being automated by AI Look at Suno. Fantastic tool, but where was the…
> dealing with customer support This is one of the first parts LLMs tried to automate. They were literally released in a form of chatbot. Whether it succeeded is another question. > Did the world really wake up one day and concluded that, "wait, we're spending too much on musicians"? I'm not sure about musicians specifically, but in the whole past decade studios have been complaining how costly it is to make AAA game…
> This is one of the first parts LLMs tried to automate. They were literally released in a form of chatbot. Whether it succeeded is another question.
I don't think that's right. They tried to automate customer support dealing with me, not me dealing with customer support. The goal is to reduce costs of serving customer support even if it results in the customer doing more labor than a customer support professional would need to do to fix their problem, or the customer just living with their problem.
Obviously both parties would be happy with a result where I get what I need easily and for free, but the company is also generally happy if I live with it or expend a lot of effort solving it myself.
I have said repeatedly that when AI eliminates the need for human creativity and work, the only thing left as the natural domain of humans will be bloodshed. The fact that we're using AI killer robots to wipe each other out in droves doesn't bode well for that future does it...
Nothing, really?
I think people are aware that speech can be an act, and that some violent acts must be resisted with reciprocal violence. (That's why we have "incitement to violence" as a limitation on free speech, for instance.)
Are we at that point? Maybe not. But I think it's a poor imagination that says it can never happen.
"Gleefully taking away people's livelihoods will be met with violence, and nothing good will come of it." - fixed.