4 ms·

Are there any employees of OpenAI around? I had a question: Does anyone in the office stop to contemplate the ramifications of developing technology that will

Are there any employees of OpenAI around? I had a question: Does anyone in the office stop to contemplate the ramifications of developing technology that will likely put most people out of a job, which will have a whole host of knock-on effects?

galoisscobi 4y ago
Maybe Sam thinks about this at some level. From his New Yorker profile[0]: > "The other most popular scenarios would be A.I. that attacks us and nations fighting with nukes over scarce resources.” The Shypmates looked grave. “I try not to think about it too much,” Altman said. “But I have guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli Defense Force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to.” This doesn't explicitly talk about him being worried about AI putting a lot of people out of jobs but he is prepping for AI going awry. [0]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  The fact that his backup plan if things go really wrong is to bug out, damn the rest of the world, is, to put it mildly, not great.
NickBusey 4y ago
Self checkout machines put people out of a job. Cars put stable boys out of jobs. Light bulbs put candlemakers out of jobs. Are the people who made them also morally culpable? Let’s just make no progress ever in the name of employment I guess. /s
- sammalloy 4y ago
  > Self checkout machines put people out of a job. Have they, though? Is there good data on this? I haven’t seen anyone lose any jobs over this in my area. They either get reassigned to different departments or get better jobs doing the same thing in companies that refuse to use self-checkouts. And I read here just a month or so ago that Amazon closed many of their "no cashier" stores in NY and Trader Joe’s vowed to never use them. > Light bulbs put candlemakers out of jobs I would guess that such artisans moved on to other niche products. Where I live, candlemakers today make a lot of money, and I had a chance to watch them do their thing in their small commercial space. This was a one person operation, no employees and no mechanization, and judging by the amount of product they were creating and their wholesale prices, they were pulling in about about 300k a year or more, after taking into account supplies.
  - NickBusey 4y ago
    I like that your first point asks for data on a common phenomenon. (Side note: Everyone was reassigned or got a better job? You sure about that?) Then your second point is a wild anecdote with zero data. (Side note: With zero additional data I can tell you that your “judging” of their profit is wildly inaccurate.)
    - sammalloy 4y ago
      Google is your friend. Candlemaking businesses run by sole proprietors are highly profitable with total revenue in the billions. I probably wouldn’t have believed it if I didn’t see the operation up close and personal for myself. It’s a lot of work for one person, and the the person who runs the business I saw works 12 hours a day.
      - Carrok 4y ago
        > person who runs the business I saw works 12 hours a day Oh OK, so if you work yourself to death you can make slightly above average income. Cool, I guess. I'm not seeing how it's relevant to GP's point though. Candle makers still exist yes. But are you really arguing the light bulb did not cause that specific job to become less common? I also thought it was fun how, you asked for a citation, then when you were asked for to provide one yourself, you respond with "gOoGlE iS yOuR fRiEnD".
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        sammalloy 4y ago
        > so if you work yourself to death you can make slightly above average income These people are working for themselves with no boss, and doing what they love. They don’t believe they are working themselves to death. Again, Google: "The national average U.S. income in 2021 was $97,962. The median U.S. income in 2021 was $69,717. Highest paying jobs: Chief executives and nurse anesthetists earned over $200,000 a year on average in 2021, making them the highest paid occupations." So really, what are you talking about? Nothing slightly above average income here. Maybe step out of your bubble. People work 12 hours a day all over the country. I did it for ten years. Doesn’t mean it’s good, right, or acceptable, but it’s considered normal in the US. > But are you really arguing the light bulb did not cause that specific job to become less common? Artisans like candlemakers were needed at that time and today. The job is still very much in demand. Is the job less common due to electric lights? Possibly, but do you think craftspeople in that industry couldn’t make something else? They could and they did. The painter Renoir is often cited as an example of a craftsman who lost his job due to the industrialization of porcelain manufacturing, and was forced to work as a portrait artist for rich patrons who wanted portraits made of their family. > I also thought it was fun how, you asked for a citation, then when you were asked for to provide one yourself, you respond with "gOoGlE iS yOuR fRiEnD". A citation for what? Candlemaking is a huge industry with people starting new businesses all the time. I gave an example of one in my community. It’s really common. A quick search will show you what I’m talking about, and as it turns out 300k is expected for a medium operation run out of a commercial garage space.
- madmask 4y ago
  I think these comparisons always miss that humans are still useful because they are the control system in the end. Even if at very high level. When AGI comes along, humans will have to compete with it in the market, and there may be very little actual need for humans.
  - NickBusey 4y ago
    I believe humans will continue to be useful. You apparently do not. I have not missed anything.
- dclowd9901 4y ago
  Self checkout machines, light bulbs and cars are all capable of one thing, which is each respective to their built purpose. AI is currently capable of a lot and with a seeming end goal of removing the human completely from the equation. We’re not talking about a small cabal of candle makers or carriage drivers having to learn new manufacturing processes or how to drive a car. We’re talking about upending humans working entirely. I fail to see any non-physical job a sufficiently trained AI won’t be able to do better than their human counterpart. At that point, it won’t be “what kinds of jobs can AI perform?” It’ll be “what use are humans in the workplace?” For at least a while, humans will have some usefulness in the trades, since producing functional robots who will come over and fix your plumbing or take down a wall is probably a ways off, but who knows how long it’ll take for AI to figure out ways to produce cheap and efficient robots?
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Many of them probably do contemplate it. Aware that since AI is a sea change, there's difficulty predicting the full range of first-order consequences, much less all the resulting second-order ones. But... genie, bottle; prisoner's dilemma. If they object to what they're building, or how it's implemented, too strenuously, they will be out of a job. Then not only do they have more immediate concerns about sustaining themselves, they have no weight in how things play out.

galoisscobi 4y ago

Maybe Sam thinks about this at some level. From his New Yorker profile[0]: > "The other most popular scenarios would be A.I. that attacks us and nations fighting with nukes over scarce resources.” The Shypmates looked grave. “I try not to think about it too much,” Altman said. “But I have guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli Defense Force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to.” This doesn't explicitly talk about him being worried about AI putting a lot of people out of jobs but he is prepping for AI going awry. [0]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...

CatWChainsaw 4y ago
The fact that his backup plan if things go really wrong is to bug out, damn the rest of the world, is, to put it mildly, not great.

NickBusey 4y ago

Self checkout machines put people out of a job. Cars put stable boys out of jobs. Light bulbs put candlemakers out of jobs. Are the people who made them also morally culpable? Let’s just make no progress ever in the name of employment I guess. /s

sammalloy 4y ago
> Self checkout machines put people out of a job. Have they, though? Is there good data on this? I haven’t seen anyone lose any jobs over this in my area. They either get reassigned to different departments or get better jobs doing the same thing in companies that refuse to use self-checkouts. And I read here just a month or so ago that Amazon closed many of their "no cashier" stores in NY and Trader Joe’s vowed to never use them. > Light bulbs put candlemakers out of jobs I would guess that such artisans moved on to other niche products. Where I live, candlemakers today make a lot of money, and I had a chance to watch them do their thing in their small commercial space. This was a one person operation, no employees and no mechanization, and judging by the amount of product they were creating and their wholesale prices, they were pulling in about about 300k a year or more, after taking into account supplies.
- NickBusey 4y ago
  I like that your first point asks for data on a common phenomenon. (Side note: Everyone was reassigned or got a better job? You sure about that?) Then your second point is a wild anecdote with zero data. (Side note: With zero additional data I can tell you that your “judging” of their profit is wildly inaccurate.)
  - sammalloy 4y ago
    Google is your friend. Candlemaking businesses run by sole proprietors are highly profitable with total revenue in the billions. I probably wouldn’t have believed it if I didn’t see the operation up close and personal for myself. It’s a lot of work for one person, and the the person who runs the business I saw works 12 hours a day.
    - Carrok 4y ago
      > person who runs the business I saw works 12 hours a day Oh OK, so if you work yourself to death you can make slightly above average income. Cool, I guess. I'm not seeing how it's relevant to GP's point though. Candle makers still exist yes. But are you really arguing the light bulb did not cause that specific job to become less common? I also thought it was fun how, you asked for a citation, then when you were asked for to provide one yourself, you respond with "gOoGlE iS yOuR fRiEnD".
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - sammalloy 4y ago
        > so if you work yourself to death you can make slightly above average income These people are working for themselves with no boss, and doing what they love. They don’t believe they are working themselves to death. Again, Google: "The national average U.S. income in 2021 was $97,962. The median U.S. income in 2021 was $69,717. Highest paying jobs: Chief executives and nurse anesthetists earned over $200,000 a year on average in 2021, making them the highest paid occupations." So really, what are you talking about? Nothing slightly above average income here. Maybe step out of your bubble. People work 12 hours a day all over the country. I did it for ten years. Doesn’t mean it’s good, right, or acceptable, but it’s considered normal in the US. > But are you really arguing the light bulb did not cause that specific job to become less common? Artisans like candlemakers were needed at that time and today. The job is still very much in demand. Is the job less common due to electric lights? Possibly, but do you think craftspeople in that industry couldn’t make something else? They could and they did. The painter Renoir is often cited as an example of a craftsman who lost his job due to the industrialization of porcelain manufacturing, and was forced to work as a portrait artist for rich patrons who wanted portraits made of their family. > I also thought it was fun how, you asked for a citation, then when you were asked for to provide one yourself, you respond with "gOoGlE iS yOuR fRiEnD". A citation for what? Candlemaking is a huge industry with people starting new businesses all the time. I gave an example of one in my community. It’s really common. A quick search will show you what I’m talking about, and as it turns out 300k is expected for a medium operation run out of a commercial garage space.
madmask 4y ago
I think these comparisons always miss that humans are still useful because they are the control system in the end. Even if at very high level. When AGI comes along, humans will have to compete with it in the market, and there may be very little actual need for humans.
- NickBusey 4y ago
  I believe humans will continue to be useful. You apparently do not. I have not missed anything.
dclowd9901 4y ago
Self checkout machines, light bulbs and cars are all capable of one thing, which is each respective to their built purpose. AI is currently capable of a lot and with a seeming end goal of removing the human completely from the equation. We’re not talking about a small cabal of candle makers or carriage drivers having to learn new manufacturing processes or how to drive a car. We’re talking about upending humans working entirely. I fail to see any non-physical job a sufficiently trained AI won’t be able to do better than their human counterpart. At that point, it won’t be “what kinds of jobs can AI perform?” It’ll be “what use are humans in the workplace?” For at least a while, humans will have some usefulness in the trades, since producing functional robots who will come over and fix your plumbing or take down a wall is probably a ways off, but who knows how long it’ll take for AI to figure out ways to produce cheap and efficient robots?

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Many of them probably do contemplate it. Aware that since AI is a sea change, there's difficulty predicting the full range of first-order consequences, much less all the resulting second-order ones. But... genie, bottle; prisoner's dilemma. If they object to what they're building, or how it's implemented, too strenuously, they will be out of a job. Then not only do they have more immediate concerns about sustaining themselves, they have no weight in how things play out.