I suspect that a part of this unusually-long discourse over the same, admittedly tired issues, stems from deeper societal concerns than mere technology posturing alone. That’s why it continues retreading the same ground, over and over again, trying to build armies for a given “side”.
If we break down every single AI post over the past two years, we get the same conclusions every single time:
* Transformer and Diffusion models (current “AI”) won’t replace jobs wholesale, BUT-
* Current AI will drastically reshape certain segments of employment, like software development or copywriting, BUT-
* Likely only to the point that lower-tier talent is forced out or to adapt, or that bad roles are outright eliminated (slop/SEO farms)
As for the industry itself:
* There’s no long-term market for subscription services beyond vendor lock-in and users with skill atrophy
* The build-out of inference and compute is absolutely an unsustainable bubble barring a profound revolution in machine learning that enables AI to replace employment wholesale AND do so using existing compute architectures
* The geopolitical and societal shifts toward sovereignty/right-to-repair means the best path forward is likely local-inferencing, which doesn’t support the subscription-based models of major AI players
* Likely-insurmountable challenges in hallucinations, safeguards, and reliable outputs over time will restrict adoption to niche processes instead of general tasks
And finally, from a sociological perspective:
* The large AI players/proponents are predominantly technocrat billionaires and wealthy elites seeking to fundamentally reshape societal governance in their favor and hoard more resources for themselves, a deeply diseased viewpoint that even pro-AI folks are starting to retch at the prospect of serving
* The large resistance to AI at present is broadly coming from regular people angry at the prospect of their replacement (and worse) by technology in a society where they must work to survive, and are keenly aware of the real motives in Capital eliminating the need for labor in terms of power distribution
* Humans who have dedicated their lives to skilled and/or creative pursuits in particular are vocally resistant to the mandate by technocrats of “AI everywhere”, and continue to lead the discourse not in how to fight against AI (a losing battle now that Pandora’s Box is open), but in building a healthier and more equitable society where said advancements benefit humans first/equally, and Capital last
* The “creator” part of society in particular is enraged at having their output stolen/seized by Capital for profit without compensation and destroying their digital homes and physical livelihoods in the process, and that is a wound that cannot be addressed short of direct, substantial monetary compensation in perpetuity - essentially holding Capital accountable for piracy much like Capital holds consumers accountable (or tries to). This is a topic of ongoing debate that will likely reshape IP laws at a fundamental level for the century to come.
There. You can skip the glut of blogs, now, at least until any one of the above points substantially changes.