4 ms·

I agree completely, and I have been constantly speaking about how AI will be a wealth concentrator, replacing a mass of jobs more diverse than previously seen.

I agree completely, and I have been constantly speaking about how AI will be a wealth concentrator, replacing a mass of jobs more diverse than previously seen. Unlike previous machines which can take 1-2 jobs, when humans get REALLY efficient at training AI, it will replacing hundreds en masse. AI will also have an additional effect: it will be isolating in the sense that the need for other humans will decrease. These two points alone, strengthened by many others, have led me to conclude that the world is MUCH better off with AI and that tech companies are ruining the world with their abominations.

badpun 3y ago
> Unlike previous machines which can take 1-2 jobs There are many machines replacing hundreds or even thousands of people- farm equipment, trains, tunnel boring machines etc.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I meant KINDS of jobs.
- lancesells 3y ago
  Not a real equivalent. Those machines are made by many, many people along the way. Industries exist from those machines. With software you could say chip makers, developers, and energy companies will get stronger but I don't think there's a comparison. The keyholders will be a much smaller group with a greater power if we stay onboard the AI train.
  - orangecat 3y ago
    Not a real equivalent. Those machines are made by many, many people along the way. Industries exist from those machines. Sure, and even taking that into account we produce far more food with far less human labor than we did 100 years ago, and that's a good thing.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  And they do lead to unemployment. What are the people thinking? There is unemployment, and technology causes it more than it relieves it, especially software technology.
hnhg 3y ago
Another side effect: the wealth will be concentrated in rich tax-avoiding corporations and elites, meaning that the tax burden for society will fall even harder on the remaining middle and working classes, who will have to pay for the upkeep of everything.
- dahwolf 3y ago
  And yet another side effect, the one that I believe trumps them all: a loss of meaning. If somebody with zero skill in the arts can produce output of similar quality as a craftsman and about a thousand times faster, what is the point of art anymore? Sure, one can enjoy the very act of creating art, but we can't deny that art has value in relation to an audience, and is also a display of skill and a source of pride. What if AI generates the perfect music just for you, based on your taste? Here we lose any and all social/cultural aspects of music. There's no point in discussing music as we have no shared experience. There's no point in emphasizing your favorite song because everybody exclusively listens to favorite songs. What if you need to write a long essay and use AI to help write it. I receive it and use AI to summarize it. Other than this interaction being supremely depressing, what is the point of it at all? Just submit it to the big machine and perhaps some of it will show up in my use of ChatGPT-17. So you were faster to write something whilst I was faster to consume it. This allows the both of us to do more in a single day. This "big win" won't gives us back free time nor raise our wages though. I just means that the nature of the work is for us to take the job of being guard rails for AI, a soul crushing job in itself but also temporary, until the rails are no longer needed.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >If somebody with zero skill in the arts can produce output of similar quality as a craftsman and about a thousand times faster, what is the point of art anymore? I like to think "AI" will make art better reflect its real value, devoid of the tangential flat costs associated with housing, clothing, and feeding humans in the process of producing art. The consumers at large demand driving down the cost for consuming and enjoying art, and raise hellfire if there is so much as a suggestion of raising that cost. Remember how much controversy there was and still is about raising the standard price of video games from $60 USD to $70 USD? And that $60 USD today is pennies compared to $60 back in, say, 1995. If the consumers at large demand the cost of art to go down and "AI" will make the process of producing that art better reflect that real value, isn't this overall a good thing insofar as making the price tag more clear and agreeable and closing down sweatshops?
HellDunkel 3y ago
Should it say „without AI“? Makes no sense like this..
tivert 3y ago
> These two points alone, strengthened by many others, have led me to conclude that the world is MUCH better off with AI and that tech companies are ruining the world with their abominations. Do you mean "world is MUCH better off without AI." What you wrote doesn't make much sense withing the context of your comment, but I have to ask because there are some software engineers that find abominations appealing for some reason, or just lack the ability to tell the difference between desirable technology and a technological abomination. I think a big component of the latter is many software engineers' overconfidence in their abilities that makes them easy marks, and the willingness of many kinds of hype men to exploit that to con them with propaganda.
- HenryBemis 3y ago
  I am not a software engineer. When (for my work) I/we need a decent chunk of development done, we get the pros. BUT, sometimes I want something that will automate the fudge out of my PC (imagine command prompt on overdrive). I usually DDG for the solution and end up in some 10yo solution in StackExchange, which doesn't do the thing. My friends have all forgotten their DOS skills.. so I turn to ChatGPT and boom! I get me 2 paragraphs script in 30secs. Do I hire devs? Hell yeah and we pay well, and we will continue to do so for many years. Do I use ChatGPT for the small (personal) stuff? Hell yeah too. Now, if a company wants to outsource everything to an LLM/AI then I wish them the best of luck, coz when something will break (and oh IT WILL), Tthe contractor they screwed over should charge them x50!!!!
  - ceroxylon 3y ago
    Definitely agree, LLMs are only as useful as the person interpreting and implementing the output; if someone doesn't have enough knowledge or context about the thing they are trying to solve/create then copy & pasting blindly while asking the wrong questions will lead projects to disaster. I have witnessed this firsthand when I dove into the deep end on something over my head, GPT-4 Code Interpreter went into an error loop and I had to learn all of the background knowledge I was foolishly trying to avoid.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
blibble 3y ago
> Unlike previous machines which can take 1-2 jobs, when humans get REALLY efficient at training AI, it will replacing hundreds en masse. more like hundreds of millions > AI will also have an additional effect: it will be isolating in the sense that the need for other humans will decrease. unless there's a complete restructuring of our society then a repeat of the late 18th century seems to be the likely outcome with their stake in society gone: the peasant class get fed up of eating dirt and storm the bastille (I really, really hope the AI revolution turns out to be just hype)
- zamadatix 3y ago
  I think they mean jobs as in lines of work not jobs as in instances of employment. One thing I wonder about a repeat of history is if the lowest classes still get enough of a share of the increased output in income/QoL would there still be a revolt about the increasing wealth concentration?

badpun 3y ago

> Unlike previous machines which can take 1-2 jobs There are many machines replacing hundreds or even thousands of people- farm equipment, trains, tunnel boring machines etc.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I meant KINDS of jobs.
lancesells 3y ago
Not a real equivalent. Those machines are made by many, many people along the way. Industries exist from those machines. With software you could say chip makers, developers, and energy companies will get stronger but I don't think there's a comparison. The keyholders will be a much smaller group with a greater power if we stay onboard the AI train.
- orangecat 3y ago
  Not a real equivalent. Those machines are made by many, many people along the way. Industries exist from those machines. Sure, and even taking that into account we produce far more food with far less human labor than we did 100 years ago, and that's a good thing.
Aerbil313 3y ago
And they do lead to unemployment. What are the people thinking? There is unemployment, and technology causes it more than it relieves it, especially software technology.

hnhg 3y ago

Another side effect: the wealth will be concentrated in rich tax-avoiding corporations and elites, meaning that the tax burden for society will fall even harder on the remaining middle and working classes, who will have to pay for the upkeep of everything.

dahwolf 3y ago
And yet another side effect, the one that I believe trumps them all: a loss of meaning. If somebody with zero skill in the arts can produce output of similar quality as a craftsman and about a thousand times faster, what is the point of art anymore? Sure, one can enjoy the very act of creating art, but we can't deny that art has value in relation to an audience, and is also a display of skill and a source of pride. What if AI generates the perfect music just for you, based on your taste? Here we lose any and all social/cultural aspects of music. There's no point in discussing music as we have no shared experience. There's no point in emphasizing your favorite song because everybody exclusively listens to favorite songs. What if you need to write a long essay and use AI to help write it. I receive it and use AI to summarize it. Other than this interaction being supremely depressing, what is the point of it at all? Just submit it to the big machine and perhaps some of it will show up in my use of ChatGPT-17. So you were faster to write something whilst I was faster to consume it. This allows the both of us to do more in a single day. This "big win" won't gives us back free time nor raise our wages though. I just means that the nature of the work is for us to take the job of being guard rails for AI, a soul crushing job in itself but also temporary, until the rails are no longer needed.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >If somebody with zero skill in the arts can produce output of similar quality as a craftsman and about a thousand times faster, what is the point of art anymore? I like to think "AI" will make art better reflect its real value, devoid of the tangential flat costs associated with housing, clothing, and feeding humans in the process of producing art. The consumers at large demand driving down the cost for consuming and enjoying art, and raise hellfire if there is so much as a suggestion of raising that cost. Remember how much controversy there was and still is about raising the standard price of video games from $60 USD to $70 USD? And that $60 USD today is pennies compared to $60 back in, say, 1995. If the consumers at large demand the cost of art to go down and "AI" will make the process of producing that art better reflect that real value, isn't this overall a good thing insofar as making the price tag more clear and agreeable and closing down sweatshops?

HellDunkel 3y ago

Should it say „without AI“? Makes no sense like this..

tivert 3y ago

> These two points alone, strengthened by many others, have led me to conclude that the world is MUCH better off with AI and that tech companies are ruining the world with their abominations. Do you mean "world is MUCH better off without AI." What you wrote doesn't make much sense withing the context of your comment, but I have to ask because there are some software engineers that find abominations appealing for some reason, or just lack the ability to tell the difference between desirable technology and a technological abomination. I think a big component of the latter is many software engineers' overconfidence in their abilities that makes them easy marks, and the willingness of many kinds of hype men to exploit that to con them with propaganda.

HenryBemis 3y ago
I am not a software engineer. When (for my work) I/we need a decent chunk of development done, we get the pros. BUT, sometimes I want something that will automate the fudge out of my PC (imagine command prompt on overdrive). I usually DDG for the solution and end up in some 10yo solution in StackExchange, which doesn't do the thing. My friends have all forgotten their DOS skills.. so I turn to ChatGPT and boom! I get me 2 paragraphs script in 30secs. Do I hire devs? Hell yeah and we pay well, and we will continue to do so for many years. Do I use ChatGPT for the small (personal) stuff? Hell yeah too. Now, if a company wants to outsource everything to an LLM/AI then I wish them the best of luck, coz when something will break (and oh IT WILL), Tthe contractor they screwed over should charge them x50!!!!
- ceroxylon 3y ago
  Definitely agree, LLMs are only as useful as the person interpreting and implementing the output; if someone doesn't have enough knowledge or context about the thing they are trying to solve/create then copy & pasting blindly while asking the wrong questions will lead projects to disaster. I have witnessed this firsthand when I dove into the deep end on something over my head, GPT-4 Code Interpreter went into an error loop and I had to learn all of the background knowledge I was foolishly trying to avoid.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago

blibble 3y ago

> Unlike previous machines which can take 1-2 jobs, when humans get REALLY efficient at training AI, it will replacing hundreds en masse. more like hundreds of millions > AI will also have an additional effect: it will be isolating in the sense that the need for other humans will decrease. unless there's a complete restructuring of our society then a repeat of the late 18th century seems to be the likely outcome with their stake in society gone: the peasant class get fed up of eating dirt and storm the bastille (I really, really hope the AI revolution turns out to be just hype)

zamadatix 3y ago
I think they mean jobs as in lines of work not jobs as in instances of employment. One thing I wonder about a repeat of history is if the lowest classes still get enough of a share of the increased output in income/QoL would there still be a revolt about the increasing wealth concentration?