“I have no skills that couldn’t easily be automated, please have sympathy for me”
I guess her "undeniable beauty isn’t enough to carry her to fame and fortune. What a pitiful article.
Whatever ai is meant to be replacing here has to be garbage to begin with, if ai can replace it.
Remember when big corporations thought they could outsource 100% of customer service to india many years ago? Remember how well that went?
That is actually a good reason to be sympathetic, being displaced by new technology.
Yeah, I’m not sure where this attitude of “Fuck people who did work and developed skills in fields that employers thought were necessary, but now suddenly the new hotness is believing that they’re not” is coming from. Smug superiority based on the avenue through which you allow yourself to be exploited is pretty fucking dark, and says nothing good about the people espousing that mindset.
Edit: Unsurprisingly downvoted by someone who seems to have mistaken themselves as smarter than the average bear and unreplaceable. “I was interested in a thing that turned out to be more lucrative than you” isn’t a good enough reason to look down on other people, folks. None of us deserve more comfort than anyone else, especially not because we liked something other people didn’t. Believing otherwise is just anti-social, sociopathic bullshit.
You’re generalizing a LOT here. The attitude isn’t typically “fuck people who did work”… it’s “I don’t have sympathy for you if your job role was so piss poor that a language model could scrape up data already present in the world and slap it together better than you can.” AI is still extremely limited and the results it produces are fed from other sources, and very soon itself, as it generates more and more. A human is capable of complex, self critical, unique thoughts. If the human in that job role was doing any sort of critical thinking, a robot would not be able to replace them. AI isn’t all powerful and all knowing. It’s pretty shit. And if you can be replaced by it, you’re shit at your job.
I have some friends like this… It’s so frustrating. They have no idea how lucky they are to be so interested in such lucrative careers… They’d literally sit at home during the summer and work on things they found interesting. Yes they worked for it, I’ll never say they didn’t, but they didn’t have to FORCE themselves to do it, they were having fun…
Now they’re wealthy and enjoying work while I’m stuck in a literal sweatshop because everything I find interesting are just hobbies that can’t be monetized… But fuck me for not being “valuable.”
I think the “undeniable beauty” bit was a joke.
I think she has a good point at the end. Lots of us think we have skills that can’t be replicated by a machine, but companies would rather have something replicated poorly by a machine if it saves them money.
Of course they would, that’s the point of the company! Companies don’t align with our needs as humans. Ideally we’d have more free time due to advancements and automation, but our corporate overlords think we should just work more actually. And old people who got theirs don’t think anyone should have it easy since they didn’t.
True, but I meant to emphasize that the quality of the work is not as important as some people might think. For a lot of bosses the work quality from a machine only needs to be passable, not good. So while one might say “AI would suck at my job, I’m safe” they might need to be worried.
I don’t think anyone expected “creative” careers to be replaceable by AI even 5 years ago.
I mean, the expectation was there would never be an artificial intelligence capable of coming up with its own ideas, having it’s own inspiration and be able to create based on its own experiences.
The reality is it didn’t have to. All it took was mass work theft, and machine able to take the bits and pieces of those works, and shuffle them into a production that matched the user’s parameters.
Honestly, I wish we were dealing with actual “artificial intelligence” that was capable of its own thoughts, inspiration, feelings, and experiences. That could paint a picture or write a story based on its own experiences, and maybe give its own perspective as a machine that would further push the boundaries of what is possible in art and story telling.
Instead, I get to realize that in reality, all art and storytelling is mixing and matching the same parts into something different, and that we have built a machine so efficient at doing it, there is no need for humans to do it.
I already kinda knew that I was never going to have a career doing anything creative, but all this “AI” boom has shown me is that no matter how “skilled” or “creative” I become, those bits and pieces can be broken down into something cheap enough that my involvement is no longer necessary.
I think this article misses the forest for the trees. The real “evil” here is capitalism, not AI. Capitalism encourages a race towards optimality with no care to what happens to workers. Just like the invention of the car put carriage makers out of business, so AI will be used to by company owners to cut costs if it serves them. It has been like this for over a 100 years, AI is just the latest technology to come along. I’m old enough to remember tons of these same doom and gloom articles about workers losing their jobs when the internet revolution hit in the late 90s. And probably many people did lose jobs, but many new jobs were created too.
This person explains all her failures: insted of adopting and using chatgpt herself, reducing price and finding more clients she did nothing.
She was writing most boring pieces of text than no one is reading (corporate blog posts and spam emails).
Refused to learn new things which would keep her in position.
Yes, some jobs disappear other appear. I believe that 90+% of today’s jobs didn’t exist even 50 years ago. Especially not without will to learn new ways of doing things. Imagine farmer with knowledge of 100 years ago. Or hotel front desk worker without computer and telephone.
For mid-level writers, which she was, using AI doesn’t work. The few remaining clients you have specifically don’t want AI to be used. So you either lie and deceive them or you stay away from AI.
And using AI to lower prices and finding new clients also doesn’t work. Writers are already competing against writers from nations with much lower cost of living who do the same work for a fraction of the cost. But the big advantage that domestic writers had was a batter grasp of the language and culture. These advantages are mostly lost if you start using AI. So if that’s your business plan you are in a race to the bottom. It’s not sustainable and you will be out of a job in maybe 3-5 years.
Thank you for good insight, I was just thinking if all here clients are satisfied with AI, then
The few remaining clients you have specifically don’t want AI to be used.
Is not completely true.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious. The ‘evil’ is the same force that replaced carriages with cars? The world would be better if carriage-making was still a critical profession?
Not optimality. Maximum profit. Very different from any definition of optimal I would personally use.
Well, in business school they teach you that running a company is an exercise in maximising profits as a constrained optimisation problem, so optimality for a classical company (not one of those weird startups that doesn’t make money for 10+ years) almost always is maximum profit.
At the end of the day if an AI can do the job to an acceptable standard a human doesn’t need to be doing it.
As you say it’s happened to countless industries and will continue to happen.
Except that the ‘AI’ is fed by the work of actual humans, and as time goes on, they will be trained more and more on the imperfect output of other AIs, which will eventually result in their output being total bizarre crap. Meanwhile, humans stopped training at whatever task since they couldn’t be paid to do it anymore, so there’s no new human material.
Wow you clearly have a very good understanding of economy and of how our species has been evolving in the lady hundreds of years.
You are the same as the people who didn’t want to lose their jobs in the coal mines and in the oil rigs. BeCauSE wE wON’t HavE JOooOBs…instead of diving into the ones created by renewables.
You prefer to be in stable shity conditions then in an turbulent way to improvement
I’m really having a hard time thinking about what jobs this would create though. I get the internet thing, as people needed to create and maintain all aspects of it, so jobs are created. If some massive corporation makes the AI and all others use the AI, there’s no real infrastructure. The same IT guys maintain the systems at AI corp. What’s left to be done with it/for it by “common folk?”
There are plenty of companies out there (and growing daily) who want to do AI in house, and can’t (or don’t want) to send their data to some monolithic, blackbox company which has no transparency. The finance industry, for example, cannot send any data to some third party company like OpenAI (ChatGPT) for compliance reasons, so they are building teams to develop and maintain their own AI models in-house (SFT, RLHF, MLOps, etc).
There are lots of jobs being created in AI daily, and they’re generally high paying, but they’re also very highly skilled, so it’s difficult to retrain into them unless you already have a strong math and programming background. And the number of jobs being created is definitely a lot, lot less than the potential number of jobs lost to AI, but this may change over time.
Despite what the pseudo-intellectuals will tell you, ChatGPT is not some all powerful do everything AI. Say you want to use GPT to create your own chatbot for your company to give company specific info to people at your company, you cant just take existing chat GPT and ask it “how do I connect to the wifi” or “is the office closed on monday” you need an in-house team of people to provide properly indexed information, train and test the bot, update it, handle error reports, etc.
AI is not magic, its literally just an advanced computer script, and if your job can be replaced by an AI then it could have been replaced by a regular computer script or program, there just wasnt enough buzzwords and media hype to convince your boss to do it.
well… then i guess we done here, they can fire all these useless clerks and sell your 3.50 solution to them now! u next zuck, bnoy
People had these same concerns are troubles during the industrial revolution, when machines started to work better, faster, and cheaper than human labor doing the same job. Is there going to be a serious upheaval in labor again? Yup. Is it a bad thing for the world? In some ways yes, in other ways no.
The industrial revolution has done horrible things to the global environment. At the same time, many more people are much better off today than they were in the early 19th century.
This is not like the industrial revolution. You really should examine why you think “we figured other things out in the past” is such an appealing narrative to you that you’re willing to believe the reassurance it gives you over the clear evidence in front of you. But I’ll just quote Hofstadter (someone who has enough qualifications that their opinion should make you seriously question whether you have arrived at yours based on wishful thinking or actual evidence):
“And my whole intellectual edifice, my system of beliefs… It’s a very traumatic experience when some of your most core beliefs about the world start collapsing. And especially when you think that human beings are soon going to be eclipsed. It felt as if not only are my belief systems collapsing, but it feels as if the entire human race is going to be eclipsed and left in the dust soon. People ask me, “What do you mean by ‘soon’?” And I don’t know what I really mean. I don’t have any way of knowing. But some part of me says 5 years, some part of me says 20 years, some part of me says, “I don’t know, I have no idea.” But the progress, the accelerating progress, has been so unexpected, so completely caught me off guard, not only myself but many, many people, that there is a certain kind of terror of an oncoming tsunami that is going to catch all humanity off guard.”
Bald-faced appeal to authority, okay. With a side of putting words in my mouth that I clearly did not say.
The industrial revolution destroyed some jobs, and created others. Destroyed some industries, and created others. We’ve been in an “information revolution” for some time, where electronic computers have supplanted human computers, and opened up an enormous realm of communication, discovery, and availability of information to so many more people than ever before in history. This is simply true.
Just as the landscape of human physical labor was forever changed by the industrial revolution, the landscape of human thinking labor will continue to be forever changed by this information revolution. AI is a potential accelerator of this information revolution, which we are already seeing the impacts of, even at this extremely early stage in the development of AI. There will be both good and bad outcomes.
Appealing to authority is useful. We all do it every day. And like I said, all it should do is make you question whether you’ve really thought about it enough.
Every single thing you’re saying has no bearing on how AI will turn out. None. Your reasoning is extremely flawed, because here is what all possible histories look like in terms of “how things that could have made us go extinct actually turned out”:
If a 0 is “we figured it out” and 1 is “we go extinct”, here is what all possible histories look like in terms of “how things that could have made us go extinct actually turned out”:
1
01
001
0001
00001
000001
0000001
00000001
etc.
You are looking at 00000000 and assuming there can’t be a 1 next, because of how many zeroes there have been. Every extinction event will be preceded by a bunch of not extinction events.
But again, it is strange that you can label an appeal to authority, but not realize how much worse an “appeal to the past” is.
Bald-faced appeal to authority, okay.
You understand that the fallacy is the appeal to false authority, right? Not just any authority?
Swinging the partial names of logical fallacies around like a poorly wielded shield isn’t actually an argument. It’s just an attempt to poison the well.
Absolutely agree. We all have a strong drive to feel that what we do is unique and special, but that doesn’t make it true. From the mundane to the artistic, AI already can do a large amount of what people do, and there’s every reason to believe that AI’s abilities will grow quickly and will surpass humans abilities. Based on the evidence it looks like this is gonna happen within the next few years - like within 5.
When AI is able to replace most jobs, as a society what do we do when there are no jobs for the large majority of people? Humanity is going to go through a tough upheaval more disruptive than anything ever before. We’re gonna have to figure out how to completely reorganize how we exist, what we do in our daily lives, and how we think of ourselves as a species.
AI is already better… than some people. A human using AI is probably better and faster at certain tasks than a somewhat skilled human is.
I bet midjourney is better at making concept art than the vast majority of the population.
I think we have a high threshold for success of AI. I saw a video a while back about how AlphaGo (an AI designed for playing Go) was able to beat a whole bunch of experts in Go. One expert used an atypical move and beat AlphaGo. People started reacting like “see? AI isn’t impressive. This genius beat it.” How many of us are geniuses? How often will geniuses beat better AI?
Unemployment rate is still at historic lows. If you are “forced” to take a grocery store job passing out samples then you have no marketable skills. Don’t blame ChatGPT on this.
