This content is for human consumption only • Hacker News Board

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#51

Post by JohnFen » Mon, May 01, 2023, 6:00 PM UTC

joshspankit wrote: post #48

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, there are some that decide to publish under the equivalent of the public domain or a CC0 license, but the vast majority of writing, art and code is licensed under specific conditions and for the most part they retain the full rights to the work. Perhaps we need a licence that precludes use for training AI's. I don't know how you could enforce that though.

Any AI that is deployed in a way where it makes money (including from ads) becomes a tool of commercial use, and there are lots of currently-used licences that deal with commercial use.

True, but that still leaves noncommercial AI -- so it's not really a substitute for being able to prohibit AI training as one of the uses of your work.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#52

Post by surgical_fire » Mon, May 01, 2023, 9:26 PM UTC

allturtles wrote: post #50

surgical_fire wrote: post #39

> like DALL-E, it seems more likely that writers, artists, and programmers are the most vulnerable to displacement. Programmer here. I'm don't feel vulnerable to displacement by AI tools. And if I'm displaced, perhaps my skills were not as meaningful as I thought they were.

> And if I'm displaced, perhaps my skills were not as meaningful as I thought they were. If "things that AIs can't do" defines the scope of meaningful skills for humans to have, that scope is going to shrink rapidly, and then where does that leave humans?

> where does that leave humans?

Perhaps nowhere. This might be unavoidable anyway.

The last to starve will be the first to suffocate.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#53

Post by zirgs » Wed, May 03, 2023, 10:54 AM UTC

Riverheart wrote: post #49

zirgs wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big companies have to compete with other big companies. What if you lay off your employees in order to make a product with a similar scope as before, but your competitor hires more people and expands the scope of their project significantly?

Considering all the big companies laying people off recently, even those with enough capital to retain them, they don’t seem very concerned about that possibility. For what it’s worth I hope you’re right.

Even after all those layoffs - they still have more employees than before the pandemic.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#54

Post by dawsoneliasen » Wed, May 03, 2023, 9:43 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #4

> This is the worst imaginable end-stage capitalism dystopia, in which the only ways to make money are the grueling physical jobs like nursing and commercial kitchens (if you work in a field like that, you have my deepest respect). Having worked a physical job on a scaffold 13 stories in the air while wearing a respirator on a sweltering summer day and grinding out mortar joints, I can’t help but feel that this would…

This is a fair point, thank you for your perspective.