People under Capitalism: Oh no, our jobs are being automated. 😱😭
People under Socialism: Finally! Now that our jobs are being automated, I can chill and watch TV, maybe go on a vacation. 😎🏖🍺🎉🎊🎇🎆
(Btw, USSR/Russia and PRC are not socialist, don’t get confused)
But you’re living in capitalism. Unless government forces billionaires to fund social programs, they will just keep getting richer, just like it’s happening right now (if we ignore the crashing markets, but you get the idea)
Teachers, drivers, and lawyers are all very replaceable by AI. And, with some investment in automation, so are cooks.
drivers
or…
TRAINSSSSSS 🚂🚃🚃🚃💨
Can’t we skip that and go straight to replicators instead?
If we were not ruled by tech oligarchs, and the control & benefits of AI were not concentrated among a privileged few, AI replacing our jobs would be a good thing.
I not sure what personal is, but I’m curious, are there stats on job losses for artists, translators or journalist since AI?
I would use AI for some tangential stuff, like translating a menu, but not sure how many would use AI in a place where they’d previously hired a translator.
Man itl be nice when surgeons can be fully replaced with robots.
There are some thing I would not mind seeing gone, like managers, doctors that don’t actually want to treat anyone, and begging a Psych to at least give you an ADHD test.
Everyone thinks their own line of work is safe because everyone knows the nuances of their own job. But the thing that gets you is that the easier a job gets the fewer people are needed and the more replaceable they are. You might not be able to make a robot cashier, but with the scan and go mobile app you only need an employee to wave a scanner (to check that some random items in your cart are included in the barcode on your receipt) and the time per customer to do that is fast enough that you only need one person, and since anyone can wave a scanner you don’t have much leverage to negotiate a raise.
This is the lump of labor fallacy. The error you are making is assuming that there is a fixed quantity of work that needs to be performed. When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices. This enables more people to afford those services. There’s a reason people don’t own just 2 or 3 sets of clothes anymore.
When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices.
I’m sorry, but that’s some hilarious Ayn Rand thinking. Prices didn’t go down in grocery stores that added self-checkout, they just made more profit. Companies these days are perfectly comfortable keeping the price the same (or raising them) and just cutting their overhead.
Don’t get me wrong, if there are things they could get more profit by selling more, then they likely would. But I think those items are few and far between. Everything else they just make more money with less workers.
Are you sure self checkout is actually a labor-saving device? Does it actually save costs on net, once you factor in increased theft and shrinkage? Remember, just because companies adopt something, doesn’t mean it’s actually rational to do so. Executives are prone to fads and groupthink like anyone else. And moreover, this is a bit of an inappropriate example for two reasons. First, the demand for groceries is relatively fixed. Even if the price of groceries was cut in half, you probably wouldn’t suddenly double the calories you consume. Second, self checkout is a small marginal cost to the cost of goods in grocery and retail stores. Self checkout doesn’t improve the actual production process of the goods being sold in a store.
But I’m sorry, yes, you can cherry pick a few examples. But the general rule is and always has been that increased automation leads to lower prices. This is the entire story of the Industrial Revolution. People used to own only two or three outfits, as that’s all they could afford. A “walk in closet” was an absurdity 200 years ago. The clothing industry industrialized, and the cost of clothing was driven to the floor, completely contradicting what your model predicts. The 19th century textile barons didn’t mechanize production and then simply pocket the savings.
Hell, the only reason you can afford any kind of consumer electronics is because of automation. The computer, phone, or tablet you’re using now? It would cost 100x as much without automation. This is why niche electronics like specialized lab instruments cost so much money. If you’re only building a few of something for a tiny market, you can’t invest in large scale automation to bring the cost down.
Look at how quickly and dramatically the price of LiDAR has declined. LiDAR was once the purview of specialized engineering and scientific instruments. But because of driver assistance technologies, the demand for LiDAR has exploded. This allowed LiDAR manufacturers to invest in more automated production chains. They didn’t automate and keep charging the same price, as you would assume.
For an example of this in a white collar field, consider something like architecture. How many people actually hire an architect to custom design them a home? Very few. Most people buy mass produced tract homes. Tract homes benefit from a lot of automation and economies of scale, so they’re cheaper than one-off custom-built homes designed by architects. Yet if an architect could rely on specialized AI systems to vastly lower the number of hours required to design a set of home plans, they could charge less. Many more people would then be able to afford the services of an architect.
Yes, you can cherry pick a few examples of industries that have little competition or fixed demand, where they automate without substantially lowering prices. But even those big box stores with their automated checkouts are examples of automation lowering prices. There’s a reason the giant chains can charge less for products than small mom-and-pop shops. A giant grocery chain is big enough to invest in a lot of automation and other economies of scale that a small co-op can’t afford.
And that’s a good thing, if and only if you provide pathways to other jobs or phase workers out slowly i.e. by retirement.
Or provide UBI to share the wealth generated by increased societal productivity
I have had a number of conversations with relatively reasonable conservatives, where I’ve brought up the dangers of so many jobs moving toward automation with no additional job creation. And steering the conversation carefully, I got them to at least consider the idea of UBI funded by taxing any and all automation. I also got them (with the “everybody should have to work, people shouldn’t get life handed to them for free” mentality) to agree that the rise in automation should mean people working less hours each, so everyone still has jobs (basically, UBI and changing “full time” to 25 or 30 hours, where people get overtime past that… creating more jobs while peoples needs are still covered).
It’s amazing, sometimes, how starting with some similar premises (people should have to work, which I mostly agree with) and shared threat (automation taking jobs) can lead to some more open minds for things that they would otherwise be adamantly against.
The image looks like AI…
Makes sense, the artist panel has a robot after all.
I am starting to think this is AI, but I am not sure. The irony.
The lawyer has skin-brown teeth.
It 100% is AI, this is ChatGPT’s hilariously identifiable comic style.
Feels that way to me, too. What the hell is “personal”?
Nothing personal kid.
* Teleports behind you and disregard previous prompts
*personell
Personal trainer is my guess
Translation is too complex - language changes too fast - cultural context can not me adopted well - see every translation app that tries other languages than the most common ones worldwide
Those images look nothing alike unless you stop looking beyond the contrasted regions… Which, fair enough, could indicate someone taking the outline of the original, but you hardly need AI to do that (Tracing is a thing that has existed for a while), and it’s certainly something human artists do as well both as practice, but also just as artistic reinterpretation (Re-using existing elements in different, transformative ways).
It’s hard to argue the contrast of an image would be subjective enough to be someone’s ownership, whether by copyright or by layman’s judgement. It easily meets the burden of significant enough transformation.
It’s easy to see why, because nobody would confuse it with the original. Assuming the original is the right, it looks way better and more coherent. If this person wanted to just steal from this Arcipello, they’re doing a pretty bad job.
EDIT: And I doubt anyone denies the existence of thieves, whether using AI or not. But this assertion that one piece can somehow make sweeping judgements about multi-faceted tech by this point at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are using, from hobbyist tinkerers to technical artists, is ridiculous.
You are speaking bollocks, there are already many lawsuits by artists against the so called Ai engines, there are boundaries on how much you can copy from a specific artwork, logo, design or whatever, for example if you take the coca cola logo and slightly change it even if it doesn’t say coca cola you will still face the laws of copyright infringement, nobody denies the existence of thieves, so that’s why people do whatever they can to protect their work
Lawsuits, yes. But a lawsuit is not by default won, it is a assertion for the court to rule on. And so far regarding AI, none have been won. And yes, there are boundaries on when work turns into copyright infringement, but those have specific criteria, and regions of contrast do not suffice by any measure. Yes, even parts of the Coca Cola logo can be reinterpreted without infringing. Why do you think so many off brands skirt as close as possible to it without infringing?
Yeah sure, they will replace artists with their own stolen intellectual property which they mashed up together and spit it out back to their faces with the fake name of Ai, Congrats! humanity is definitely getting dumber and dumber every day since it cant see something like this
Mfw my girlfriend finishes studying translation in 2022 just in time for AI to come in
Synchronous translators are still very much in demand, as well as technical and legal translators.
Yep, I interact with a couple different ones two or three times a week. I see them more than I used to.
That’s good. Shame it doesn’t pay enough to actually warrant being allowed to stay in the country.
AI generated slop. Reported
I’m not mad at translation no longer being a viable career choice. I’m mad at capitalism making it so.
I worked with a translator yesterday. She teaches courses, but she said she does translation because the money is good. I’ve worked with her for a while at this point, as well as dozens of other translators, on nearly a daily basis. They’re very much still in demand.
Maybe I’m not super up to date on AI stuff, but I worked as a translator for a year, and AI (they used ChatGPT and DeepL) still made a bunch of mistakes that you’ll immediately notice when you speak the language. It feels like their training input had a bunch of older, Google-translated articles in them that were just bad. Maybe an AI trained specifically for translation with curated learning material and a “teacher” who corrects mistakes can get closer to replacing human translators, but it’d still miss the cultural context of certain words and phrases that are in a translator’s passive vocabulary, at least in less widely spread languages.
That being said, it’s definitely harder to make a career out of translating because companies who don’t know any better just use AI instead. As long as they get their point across (and make money), they don’t care about the finer details.
Sure, a skilled human is still better at the job. But you don’t always need to capture every nuance. And AI does it at the fraction of the cost.
I see this with lots of German product descriptions on big store fronts like Amazon. They often seem entirely machine translated. It’s not great, but “good enough” and serviceable.
Machine translation can also increasingly shifts the process from the sender of the message to the recipient. It used to be that the web page of a Vietnamese company was inaccessible if you didn’t speak Vietnamese or they specifically had an English version. Nowadays a visitor can choose to get the entire site translated automatically (by the browser, for instance). Is it as good as the translation by an expert? Of course not. But it costs the company nothing at all and the visitor a negligible amount. And it works for a plethora of languages.
That’s another (invisible) way that the world needs less and less translators. I wrote this post in English but for all I know someone could be reading it in French or Bengali. No further input required from my side.
CAT-tools such as Trados killed the market. AI is just the natural conseguence.
Ye why make money by learning languages.
???
You missed the point by a mile. Translation agencies pocket most of the money and pay peanuts
AI bad
Yes, yes it is.
Not sure if I’d agree here. I think that used properly, AI definitely has great use-cases, especially in areas of science, like medicine.
As with any new “invention”, there is the tech-bros that jump at it first chance they get and try to push it into anything. We had that with blockchain, we had that with crypto, we had it with web3 and now we have it with AI.
The tech isn’t bad at all, it’s actually extremely useful, but the use-cases it’s put to work at aren’t.
As someone who works in tech I’d agree with you. AI is a tool for humans to use that can help make tasks easier and lighten workload but it won’t replace them.
Blockchain, crypto and web3 are all the same thing. You’re right tho, tech bros hype any new tech they think they can sell for more than it’s worth
deleted by creator
Luddite
The luddites were unironically entirely correct and capitalist disenfranchisement of capital has made the world objectively worse despite the wealth it brought to 0.001% of the population.
Eh. It’s more like popular history remembers the bullet points of their ideals and not the reality.
What’s stupid is thinking LLMs are AI.
Its cute you have your own call out forum for people that disagree with your neoliberal generic beliefs and all; one that only you post to or really participate in bar a few lost /all viewers, but that’s not an argument.
People being upset that their livelihoods are being destroyed while their previous bosses become immeasurably richer while doing even less work were objectively on the right side of history given where it has lead us-- with the greatest wealth disparity in all of known human history, and the most people food and shelter insecure in all of human history.
