Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replacement.ai

replacement.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#331

Post by layer8 »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #311
layer8 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know translators that have. Not because there’s nothing left to do for humans in quality translation, but because demand and compensation dropped so much that you can’t make a living from it anymore.

This is a great point. I would make the counterargument that app translators doing simple transactions of languageA to languageB for $X was possible a decade ago. AI certainly has made that low hanging fruit impossible to capitalize at speed and scale. Since AI has made the easiest part of translator's jobs much harder to monetize, translators can still offer value in lengthy transactions. Books that are to be transl…

The (former) translators I know mostly translated B2B publications (brochures, specifications, …), commonly containing specialized domain vocabulary. Certainly not low-hanging fruit. I’m sure AI can’t make a quality job on those without guidance and review by a speaker of both languages knowledgeable in the respective domain. Nevertheless, the market for such translations has dried up, and those that remain only pay a pittance.

Part of the reason likely is that the perception that translation is valuable work has changed.

Re: Replacement.ai

#332

Post by thayne »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

I have very little faith in the government to fix that problem.

And even if the government did institute something like universal basic income, if all jobs were replaced, that would almost certainly mean a lower standard of living for the middle class, and even less socioeconomic mobility than there is now.

Re: Replacement.ai

#333

Post by beeflet »

lateforwork wrote: post #238
beeflet wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What use is human skill, abilities, reputation, and status when human labor has been totally outmoded machines? Trekonomics seems like a totally backwards way of approaching post-scarcity by starting with a fictional setting. You might as well prepare yourself for the Star Wars economy.

Humans have an innate desire to be loved and respected, and this won’t change even if jobs cease to exist.

All life has a desire to exist, but that doesn't prevent extinction.

Re: Replacement.ai

#334

Post by lwhi »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #329
lwhi wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If robots are better partner, then maybe you no longer understand what it means to be human.

Another interesting point: If someone think that robots can be a better partner, then you also no longer understand what it means to be human. Maybe it depends on what you want in a relationships. AI is sycophantic and that could help people who might have trust issues with humans in general or the other sex (which is happening way more than you might think in younger generations, whether that's involuntary celebates…

I really don't buy the idea of AI helping with 'X' issue, by becoming a surrogate, because at it's root this is still avoidance.

It's not solving the problem, it's diverging away from it.

Re: Replacement.ai

#335

Post by [deleted] »

devolving-dev wrote: post #326

I've never really been convinced that robots or AI replacing humans is a real problem. Because why would they do that? If I had an army of super intelligent robots, I would have them waiting on me and fulfilling my every whim. I wouldn't send them off to silicon valley to take all of the programming jobs or something like that. You might say: "but you'll need money!". Why would I need money? The robots can provide my…

[deleted]

Re: Replacement.ai

#336

Post by JimDabell »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

> robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots.

Taking work away from people is practically the definition of technology. We invent things to reduce the effort needed to do things. Eliminating work is a good thing, that’s why inventing things is so popular!

What ends up happening is the amount of work remains relatively constant, meaning we get more done for the same amount of effort performed by the same amount of people doing the same amount of jobs. That’s why standards of living have been rising for the past few millennia instead of everybody being out of work. We took work away from humans with technology, we then used that effort saved to get more done.

Re: Replacement.ai

#337

Post by sumeno »

candiddevmike wrote: post #180
gnarlouse wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you assume the AI companies actually want to create a super intelligence they can’t control. Altman has stated as much. Musk definitely wants to remain in power.

Life, uh, finds a way

Computers are not alive

Re: Replacement.ai

#338

Post by beeflet »

collinmanderson wrote: post #313
sincerely wrote: post #9

I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

> isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? I know, right? Machines have been gradually replacing humans for centuries. Will we actually get to the point where there are not enough jobs left? It doesn't seem like we're currently anywhere close to the point of not having any jobs available. Has anyone thought about how the Federal Reserve plays a ro…

We're already here. Most jobs are fake.

Re: Replacement.ai

#339

Post by warent »

beeflet wrote: post #325
warent wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right and validating the point. A specific part of GP’s comment keeps getting overlooked: So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. Humans being forced to trade time for survival, money, and the enrichment of the elite, is a bug. We are socially conditioned to believe it’s a feature and the purpose. Nobody is saying robots should replace human connection and expr…

It is not a bug, it is a law of nature. The world has limited resources, time and labor being one of them. The technology proposes a source of labor for the elites so abundant that they will not need to trade their wealth with the eaters. However much resources you consume, it will be too much to buy for your labor. You will be priced out of existence.

Elites unilaterally claiming and reaping the benefits of automation (i.e. consolidation of wealth) is not a law of nature.

Re: Replacement.ai

#340

Post by lamename »

JimDabell wrote: post #336
TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

> robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. Taking work away from people is practically the definition of technology. We invent things to reduce the effort needed to do things. Eliminating work is a good thing, that’s why inventing things is so popular! What ends up happening is the amount of work remains relatively constant, meaning we get more done for the same amount of effort performed b…

I agree with most everything you said. The problem has always been the short-term job loss, particularly today where society as a whole has resources for safety nets, but hasnt implemented them.

Anger at companies who hold power in multiple places to prevent and worsen this situation for people is valid anger.

Post reply on HN