5 ms·

>What AI is already capable of should be celebrated. It's amazing. It can save so much time and enable so much more productivity. But we should all share in tha

>What AI is already capable of should be celebrated. It's amazing. It can save so much time and enable so much more productivity. But we should all share in that collective productivity increase as it continues to improve. It shouldn't be the case that some people win big while many, if not most, lose. That's some wishful thinking if I've ever seen one.

eggy 4y ago
Whenever there are large paradigm shifts in culture, business, or technology, there is a shift in winners and losers, so I agree this is wishful thinking.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Calavar 4y ago
This is exactly what Karl Marx predicted 200 years ago, except he saw things in the context of industrialization and mechanical automation as opposed to AI and digital automation.
koheripbal 4y ago
It would also be inconsistent with every previous technological advancement.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  I'm kinda happy that I live in this age as an office worker and not in a factory during the industrial revolution. Those jobs all disappeared but do we really miss them? It's the menial work that gets offloaded to machines. I don't see current AI coming up with new ideas for example.
  - aikinai 4y ago
    Certainly not, that update isn’t due for another week!
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    > I don't see current AI coming up with new ideas for example I'd check that carefully before relying on it. I've personally used AI to come up with new ideas for a few projects I'm working on. I've read several articles detailing how people are using it to innovate in their business and I'm 100% certain the reason why ChatGPT is at capacity during working hours every day is because there are droves of people using it daily for work now. I'd even go as far as to say that brainstorming with ChatGPT is one of the most productive use cases.
    - geraneum 4y ago
      > I've personally used AI to come up with new ideas. It seems that you basically agree with the point being made. You are coming up with those ideas with help of ChatGPT as a tool, or is the bot coming up with ideas? If it's the latter, can we remove you from the process and achieve the same result? I don't think so, but I am not saying this will never happen in the future, though.
      - throwaway4aday 4y ago
        In a hypothetical scenario where there is a group of people that need to come up with ideas then I think having ChatGPT in the mix would mean that group could be smaller but remain as productive as a larger group. It's certainly been able to fill the position of a sounding board or knowledgeable collaborator when I've used it.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      I really don't think the current generation of chatbots is capable of creative thoughts. They're just really good at combining stuff that they already know. I'm sure at some point they'll get past that point but it seems a tough nut to crack with current tech.
  - geraneum 4y ago
    > Those jobs all disappeared but do we really miss them? That's basically true, but consider this; right now, some people would vote for candidates who bring back coal mining just to restore their jobs and income. This is easy in hindsight of a couple of centuries, but very challenging at the time.
lm28469 4y ago
Especially since it's going against everything we did since the invention of the steam engine lol Like yes in a perfect world time saved would go back to workers, it doesn't though. A machine could do in a minute what a knitter would do in a day, it doesn't mean knitters got a 7 minute work week
- melvinmelih 4y ago
  > A machine could do in a minute what a knitter would do in a day, it doesn't mean knitters got a 7 minute work week That’s why the capitalist class owns the means of production (the owner makes their profit in 7 minutes now).
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  But it does mean that the people who were formerly knitters now have more material wealth than a lot of the upperclass people of their day. In order to buy a pair of shoes, that knitter would have had to work months if not a full year to save enough money. Now even some of the poorest people among us only need to spend a fraction of their weekly income to buy a new pair of very serviceable shoes that are probably much better made and more comfortable than the cheapest pair a local cobbler could have made by hand. I believe that means in a very real sense that the time saved has gone back to workers. We all already share in that collective productivity increase.
  - api 4y ago
    … which for many is all eaten up by runaway inflation in certain key constrained areas like housing. This is why in the US there are hordes of homeless people with smart phones and why the poor generally have no problem having houses full of appliances and giant TVs. Gadgets have indeed gotten radically cheaper. The things that are hard to make cheaper for structural or physical reasons like housing, health care, tuition, and child care tend to inflate so as to eat the surplus. Housing is the worst culprit in many markets.
    - e_i_pi_2 4y ago
pydry 4y ago
Wishful thinking would be if they thought it would.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
this is very shallow criticism. I benefit from invention of a car because I can buy a car and be it's owner and only benefactor You cannot buy and own ChatGPT as invididual, you will never even be able to inslect its source code. A car is patent protected. Patents allow me personally to build a car for my personal use. Copyright doesn't allow that. Patents last 20 years, copyright lasts close to 100, depending on jurisdiction. The only reason corporations can make insane profits from this tech is because we granted this category of IP insane priviliges and government is spending tax dollars to protect their IP. Make code like patents - it must be published in a register accessibke by anyone, and loses protections after 20 years. If you don't register it, then the government will not be prosecuting anyone for using it. Suddenly the benefits will be shared
- 9dev 4y ago
  I like the suggestion; contrary to physical commodities, however, the usage of derivation of code cannot be proven easily, unless the entire supply chain is rebuilt on, I don’t know, hashes of code fragments and remote attestation?
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  Now we start suing OpenAI into oblivion for copyright infringement (uhhh) when it has trained on text that is under copyright... like artists are doing to Stable Diffusion.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    thats abother option. However I believe Art belongs under copyright. It us not functional - our society does not fall apart is a famous piece of art is lost. However our society does fall apart when key piece of technology is lost, thats why Patents have all these safeguards. Code is functional technology, it is not merely artistic.

eggy 4y ago

Whenever there are large paradigm shifts in culture, business, or technology, there is a shift in winners and losers, so I agree this is wishful thinking.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Calavar 4y ago

This is exactly what Karl Marx predicted 200 years ago, except he saw things in the context of industrialization and mechanical automation as opposed to AI and digital automation.

koheripbal 4y ago

It would also be inconsistent with every previous technological advancement.

wkat4242 4y ago
I'm kinda happy that I live in this age as an office worker and not in a factory during the industrial revolution. Those jobs all disappeared but do we really miss them? It's the menial work that gets offloaded to machines. I don't see current AI coming up with new ideas for example.
- aikinai 4y ago
  Certainly not, that update isn’t due for another week!
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  > I don't see current AI coming up with new ideas for example I'd check that carefully before relying on it. I've personally used AI to come up with new ideas for a few projects I'm working on. I've read several articles detailing how people are using it to innovate in their business and I'm 100% certain the reason why ChatGPT is at capacity during working hours every day is because there are droves of people using it daily for work now. I'd even go as far as to say that brainstorming with ChatGPT is one of the most productive use cases.
  - geraneum 4y ago
    > I've personally used AI to come up with new ideas. It seems that you basically agree with the point being made. You are coming up with those ideas with help of ChatGPT as a tool, or is the bot coming up with ideas? If it's the latter, can we remove you from the process and achieve the same result? I don't think so, but I am not saying this will never happen in the future, though.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      In a hypothetical scenario where there is a group of people that need to come up with ideas then I think having ChatGPT in the mix would mean that group could be smaller but remain as productive as a larger group. It's certainly been able to fill the position of a sounding board or knowledgeable collaborator when I've used it.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    I really don't think the current generation of chatbots is capable of creative thoughts. They're just really good at combining stuff that they already know. I'm sure at some point they'll get past that point but it seems a tough nut to crack with current tech.
- geraneum 4y ago
  > Those jobs all disappeared but do we really miss them? That's basically true, but consider this; right now, some people would vote for candidates who bring back coal mining just to restore their jobs and income. This is easy in hindsight of a couple of centuries, but very challenging at the time.

lm28469 4y ago

Especially since it's going against everything we did since the invention of the steam engine lol Like yes in a perfect world time saved would go back to workers, it doesn't though. A machine could do in a minute what a knitter would do in a day, it doesn't mean knitters got a 7 minute work week

melvinmelih 4y ago
> A machine could do in a minute what a knitter would do in a day, it doesn't mean knitters got a 7 minute work week That’s why the capitalist class owns the means of production (the owner makes their profit in 7 minutes now).
throwaway4aday 4y ago
But it does mean that the people who were formerly knitters now have more material wealth than a lot of the upperclass people of their day. In order to buy a pair of shoes, that knitter would have had to work months if not a full year to save enough money. Now even some of the poorest people among us only need to spend a fraction of their weekly income to buy a new pair of very serviceable shoes that are probably much better made and more comfortable than the cheapest pair a local cobbler could have made by hand. I believe that means in a very real sense that the time saved has gone back to workers. We all already share in that collective productivity increase.
- api 4y ago
  … which for many is all eaten up by runaway inflation in certain key constrained areas like housing. This is why in the US there are hordes of homeless people with smart phones and why the poor generally have no problem having houses full of appliances and giant TVs. Gadgets have indeed gotten radically cheaper. The things that are hard to make cheaper for structural or physical reasons like housing, health care, tuition, and child care tend to inflate so as to eat the surplus. Housing is the worst culprit in many markets.
  - e_i_pi_2 4y ago

pydry 4y ago

Wishful thinking would be if they thought it would.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

this is very shallow criticism. I benefit from invention of a car because I can buy a car and be it's owner and only benefactor You cannot buy and own ChatGPT as invididual, you will never even be able to inslect its source code. A car is patent protected. Patents allow me personally to build a car for my personal use. Copyright doesn't allow that. Patents last 20 years, copyright lasts close to 100, depending on jurisdiction. The only reason corporations can make insane profits from this tech is because we granted this category of IP insane priviliges and government is spending tax dollars to protect their IP. Make code like patents - it must be published in a register accessibke by anyone, and loses protections after 20 years. If you don't register it, then the government will not be prosecuting anyone for using it. Suddenly the benefits will be shared

9dev 4y ago
I like the suggestion; contrary to physical commodities, however, the usage of derivation of code cannot be proven easily, unless the entire supply chain is rebuilt on, I don’t know, hashes of code fragments and remote attestation?
slowmovintarget 4y ago
Now we start suing OpenAI into oblivion for copyright infringement (uhhh) when it has trained on text that is under copyright... like artists are doing to Stable Diffusion.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  thats abother option. However I believe Art belongs under copyright. It us not functional - our society does not fall apart is a famous piece of art is lost. However our society does fall apart when key piece of technology is lost, thats why Patents have all these safeguards. Code is functional technology, it is not merely artistic.