4 ms·

Yeah this is crazy. I don’t understand how people don’t see this as civilization ending. Voice actors? gone Writers? Severely cut down, maybe two main writers

Yeah this is crazy. I don’t understand how people don’t see this as civilization ending. Voice actors? gone Writers? Severely cut down, maybe two main writers. Designers? Eventually gone This is the end. Eventually programmers will get replaced too. We just won’t need any employees. This is the end of civilization. We have to stop before it’s too late

ranguna 3y ago
> Eventually programmers will get replaced too. Probably before directors.
djoletina 3y ago
I don’t want to be a dick but this is a stupid take, that’s not even like 0.1% of occupations nor 0.1% of the workforce.
gizmo686 3y ago
We've had massive realignments of the labor force before. At one point agriculture was the industry that all of society was built around. Nowadays, it is a small part of tge economy, with most people having little more than a surface understanding of how it works. These realignments are generally not pretty, but hardly civilization ending. At worst, this realignment will see humans go the way of horses after the automobile instead of farmers after the industrial revolution. That is to say, at some point, there may be not be new jobs for humans to pivot into. However even that is not an existential threat to civilization. It is a threat to democratic capitalism; but civilization existed before democratic capitalism, and will continue to exist after it. Having said that, the claim that this latest technological innovation will finally push humans out of the labor force has been made before; and I don't see any reason yet to think that this time will be different.
- asylteltine 3y ago
  I hear this argument all the time but this is not that. Industrial Revolution created tons and ton of new jobs in addition to the ones it removed. This would basically just remove most jobs and create very few, extremely specialized jobs that 99.99% of people can’t do. AI is going to be our demise as a civilization.
  - gizmo686 3y ago
    That is the "humans go the way of horses" scenerio. That would be massively disruptive; but not civilization ending.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
I don't see how civilization would end from replacing some entertainment related professions.
wyldfire 3y ago
> We have to stop before it’s too late What -- exactly -- would this mean? Legislation to prevent AI? Prevent commercialized AI? Believe it or not, that actually sounds dystopian to me. A society that's so afraid of the technology it's created that it would hide from it? What do we think of human societies that acknowledge modern technology but decide to only rely on technology from ~100-200 years ago? Why was that technology acceptable? Should we halt the ongoing AI research? Destroy computation devices used to execute AI algorithms? If the US decided to ban AI, could they expect a cooperative ban from other countries? If any one country decided not to cooperate, they would likely get a huge financial benefit. Of course: AI will come with downsides -- significant ones. But I think it'll be a net improvement. Like most of human history, big technological advances were disruptive and some have caused significant harms. > Writers? Severely cut down, maybe two main writers. This also means that the existing talented writers can produce more entertainment than they would on their own. What if this means that the most talented writers can succeed more than they would have without new technology? Is that a benefit or a drawback? What if this means that mediocre writers can succeed more than they would have without new technology? Is that a benefit or a drawback? > We just won’t need any employees. "Employees" seems like a relatively recent concept in human history. Maybe we don't want to be or have employees anyways?

ranguna 3y ago

> Eventually programmers will get replaced too. Probably before directors.

djoletina 3y ago

I don’t want to be a dick but this is a stupid take, that’s not even like 0.1% of occupations nor 0.1% of the workforce.

gizmo686 3y ago

We've had massive realignments of the labor force before. At one point agriculture was the industry that all of society was built around. Nowadays, it is a small part of tge economy, with most people having little more than a surface understanding of how it works. These realignments are generally not pretty, but hardly civilization ending. At worst, this realignment will see humans go the way of horses after the automobile instead of farmers after the industrial revolution. That is to say, at some point, there may be not be new jobs for humans to pivot into. However even that is not an existential threat to civilization. It is a threat to democratic capitalism; but civilization existed before democratic capitalism, and will continue to exist after it. Having said that, the claim that this latest technological innovation will finally push humans out of the labor force has been made before; and I don't see any reason yet to think that this time will be different.

asylteltine 3y ago
I hear this argument all the time but this is not that. Industrial Revolution created tons and ton of new jobs in addition to the ones it removed. This would basically just remove most jobs and create very few, extremely specialized jobs that 99.99% of people can’t do. AI is going to be our demise as a civilization.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  That is the "humans go the way of horses" scenerio. That would be massively disruptive; but not civilization ending.

xboxnolifes 3y ago

I don't see how civilization would end from replacing some entertainment related professions.

wyldfire 3y ago

> We have to stop before it’s too late What -- exactly -- would this mean? Legislation to prevent AI? Prevent commercialized AI? Believe it or not, that actually sounds dystopian to me. A society that's so afraid of the technology it's created that it would hide from it? What do we think of human societies that acknowledge modern technology but decide to only rely on technology from ~100-200 years ago? Why was that technology acceptable? Should we halt the ongoing AI research? Destroy computation devices used to execute AI algorithms? If the US decided to ban AI, could they expect a cooperative ban from other countries? If any one country decided not to cooperate, they would likely get a huge financial benefit. Of course: AI will come with downsides -- significant ones. But I think it'll be a net improvement. Like most of human history, big technological advances were disruptive and some have caused significant harms. > Writers? Severely cut down, maybe two main writers. This also means that the existing talented writers can produce more entertainment than they would on their own. What if this means that the most talented writers can succeed more than they would have without new technology? Is that a benefit or a drawback? What if this means that mediocre writers can succeed more than they would have without new technology? Is that a benefit or a drawback? > We just won’t need any employees. "Employees" seems like a relatively recent concept in human history. Maybe we don't want to be or have employees anyways?