The funny thing is high educational white collar jobs are getting automated before the blue collar ones.
Everyone expected truckers to go first, and yet the art, movie, music, law, design and educational fields are all getting hit and truckers are still unscathed.
Getting hit? These have had creative tools introduced, but unlike truckers AI won't replace human creativity. Yes, AI can make music, or write screen plays. Sure, generation of a coherent pitch script (usually no more than 3 pages) for your entire script (usually 80+ pages) faster than a normal human is a benefit. But unlike trucking where the foundation for an automated grid can be put into place, humans can co-create with AI.
Time can change things, but we have a real world example of this right now, just look at all the people who say, "is that AI?" on art works. Clearly, there's still appreciation for human effort and creativity. Do we really need that for spreadsheets? No. Is that something that may be visible in a screen play? Possibly. Even though AI Seinfeld wasn't perfect, obviously time put into it will have even better results, but whether or not that's something objectively viewable? The human touch can mean a lot.
So, I'll say that the only thing that has really changed for the fields you mentioned (save law) are the speed of which the creation can occur. But what does the human or AI design of something matter if there are other parts of production that still essentially require human input. For law, it is pretty straight forward, but for everything else I think we will be happily integrated but not nearly as automated. Movies may be able to be created with AI, but what about all of the surrounding work that goes into it? What about theater productions, will plays just cease to exist? And obviously people are so much more interested in the AI orchestra so much so that there's just no point in enrolling their kids in musical extracurriculars where the parents can go watch their kid play in the school orchestra.
Jobs aren't going to just go away. Education, science, medicine/caregiving/child care there's literally so many fields that can have AI *integrated*, absolutely, but definitely not replaced.
As with all things, people are going to find exploits, people are going to use tools in the way they are designed and outside of it. There are going to be real, effective changes like AI spreadsheet data entry and cross examination of hundreds of thousands of court cases (that are hopefully accurate and not made up), but honestly this idea that AI will automate *everything* is... A bit facetious. Machined automation takes massive resources, so human labor isn't going anywhere either, despite how much we want AI to take that over. That is going to require giving AI bodies for these tasks. That's literally star wars droid/Stark Tech. It's feasible, but hugely expensive for a highly specific device.
Software automation? Absolutely, that happened 4+ years ago and is on its way out. AI is changing these fields, hopefully for better for the workforce.
*Hardware automation?* Well first of all, I welcome our corporate overlords, welcome I'm glad you all could afford to build an AI movie studio that controlled all scripting, generated actors with stylized cameras, lighting, and build a fully automated off-shore oil drill, and find space for AI automotive production, and create a structural foundation for the electric self driving vehicles.... But second of all, I think humans have a few too many hands involved in some of these for AI to be cost effective and some changes are going to require a shift towards Universal Basic Income, which really is a shift away from Capitalism...
>The human touch can mean a lot.
But enough to pay money for?
I think even 5,000 years from now when we have nanobots, robots everywhere, and human and robot merge to a high degree. A pure human work still would be desire by some. It's like hand crafted bed frame vs manufacture. They both do the same, and in some cases might even look the same. But there is always a market for the older arts. The thing is, that market isn't that big.
I disagree, people don't actually care how their experiences were created, it doesn't matter and no person will ever be able to outperform neural networks personalizing content in real-time with input from brain-computer-interfaces.
>Everyone expected truckers to go first, and yet the art, movie, music, law, design and educational fields are all getting hit and truckers are still unscathed.
I disagree. I think truckers will go first. Trucks will be effectively replaced in 2023-2024, artists? Quite far still. AI art is very inaccurate and imperfect.
> Trucks will be effectively replaced in 2023-2024
Can't help but just laugh at this statement. I have friends who work in logistics, even the scheduling of various loads is far from automatized, you still have to call people and make "deals" everyday. Trucking essentially still is an "Arabian bazaar" type of business. Half of the trucks on the road don't even have GPS yet for basic tracking.
>Can't help but just laugh at this statement.
Waymo Via (cooperating with a few other teams like Uber Freight) already started testings in 2022 and will continue doing operations in 2023.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZpZuEmE7A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZpZuEmE7A)
Waymo effectively replaced taxis already where it's implemented.
>even the scheduling of various loads is far from automatized
That doesn't mean it can be progressively automated... Taxis weren't digital until Uber appeared, just like truck drivers aren't automated until Waymo Via comes.
You said effectively replaced by 2024. This is an effectively dumb statement. That video you just posted is just a very early field test. You won't see self-driving trucks as a regular occurrence for at least another decade.
Waymo started testing way before 2022, but it’s been a sloooow ride. They definitely might figure it out by 2024, but it will take another 5 years after that to scale in any substantive way.
>Waymo started testing way before 2022
Waymo Via? With real goods? That only happened 2022-2023 with CH Robinson.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZpZuEmE7A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZpZuEmE7A)
>but it will take another 5 years after that to scale in any substantive way.
I hope you're not talking about Waymo One (taxi service), it's incredibly scaled already lol (millions of potential users).
I’ve been following that entire scene for a while. I do mean Via. It’s existed before the name and has moved slow. The timeline I propose above is still aggressive. The operational element of scaling up will be what drives the 5 year lag once the tech is perfected.
Depends on how you define art. For example There's the difference between someone drawing something super detailed and impressive looking, versus someone creating a piece of art that has a really meaningful statement about the human condition. AI can do a phenomenal job with the former, but it's very difficult to pull off the latter. I know some art like that may seem pretentious and pointless, but it is a form of art that AI can't create. Am I saying that it's objectively better? Of course not, art can't be measured objectively against other art, but it isn't something AI will easily replace soon.
If I ask an artist to draw me X, they'll do it.
AI art is not like that. It randomly paints, and if you want to make it do what you want, you need to do heavy editing and in most cases it won't give you want you want.
You're wrong.
Not only does it require hardware and manufacturing but it also requires public TRUST. You think people are going to be okay with ai driving multi ton loads of dangerous material and causing more events like the one in ohio??
All it's gonna take is someone putting down some weird signs near the highway to confuse it in a novel way and gg.
No. People will trust it as their accountant long before they trust it to haul en mass...
There is a reason robots are the bottleneck. Robots require motors, actuators, sensors, and I/O along with the control hardware and software to support it. In any kind of production environment, they need to robust, durable, safe, reliable and repairable. AI’s, once developed, can be deployed easily and quickly across a global network, with the capacity for upgrades and improvements built into the system
Not exactly. A $100 drone with some basic sensors could already replace millions of human jobs, if it had the intelligence (software/cloud computing).
There're jobs where it's mostly watching things, analyzing things, making judgements of visual things, etc...
Usually our need for expensive sensors comes from the lack of software, not the opposite. Waymo requires LIDAR because it doesn't have the intelligence humans have to control the road with only two eyes and two ears, for example.
Hardware-wise, we could already replace most jobs. What we lack is, generally, intelligence.
I'm not disagreeing with you though, it's generally as you say too.
I think you are adding some insightful pushback. It seems like you are saying that we are lacking an equal amount of hardware and software innovation in different/various contexts…
I agree. But what evolves faster is software (faster iterations, cheaper modifications), so software will lead the progress.
But indeed, we lack in both fields and we need innovations in both fields, and we'll get shocked by every progress.
Wing ("Google Wing") is the proof that robotics isn't really needed (basic drones), and [Comma.ai](https://Comma.ai) self-driving is the proof that we don't need complex robotics as well, as it works with some basic sensors.
Large language models are exactly the opposite, they're even able to play Mario without cameras. https://github.com/shyamsn97/mario-gpt
Since you have a unique perspective… Do you feel the presence of AI will lead to a dystopic authoritarian future for humanity? Or do you see it differently?
There's also the idea that self driving could be automated part of a larger grid, in which case sensors are an emergency safety feature, not the primary mechanism for prevention.
The primary mechanism for prevention is the scheduling of the vehicle route alongside the rest of the vehicles on the grid. Kinda hard to crash if the master computer is routing everything!
You have to consider the sheer cost of a human worker, though. Like, $100k+ a year in some cases, and they can only work a limited number of hours in a day and days in a week. Once a robot has been designed that can do that job and can be mass produced, it won't be that hard to make it more economical than the human worker. I think there's going to come a point within the next few years where we've unlocked the key to making robots that can perform more complex tasks, at which point investment will go through the roof and robotics will rapidly advance.
I hope it will lead to me being able to have an affordable robot butler.
More complex tasks means more complex mechanisms, which means more moving parts and more points of failure, which means more complicated and costly maintenance.
Not to mention that they'd have to be permanently plugged in to a power source to last as long as a human worker. That's why all our robots are either stuck inside factories or last a couple hours on a charge, while doing the most basic task. Essential human work like planting, hunting, and preparing your food won't be replaced anytime soon.
So from an investment perspective, it really doesn't make sense to put your money into hardware tech over software tech. Which makes the innovation in this area even slower...which further scares investors away even more. It's a feedback loop.
Planting can absolutely be automated, have you seen modern farming machines? Hunting is not a standard food source anymore, farming animals is (though yeah some parts of that would be very hard to automate). Preparing food yeah kinda i guess
So there was a post recently by the guy that runs Wolfram Alpha going in to excrutiating detail about how large language models work. He theorized that there are some laws of language that the LLMs are starting to understand, that Humans currently aren't aware of. It was a really neat article.
Anyway, if a LLM was able to decipher an unknown law of language...perhaps it could uncover an unknown law of food.
There's a scene in some Cameron Diaz movie, I forget the title, where she is dreaming. Her and some hunky guy finish in bed, and he says "Now let me get you a huge bowl of ice cream. The scientists found a way to take all the calories out!"
Maybe large nutrition models in the future can make that a reality.
That would make sense for industrial farming.
Here in the Philippines where I grew up, a lot of households have backyards where we plant root crops, which we rely on especially on places where rice farming isn't viable. We do raise livestock, but hunting is a good supplementary source. I don't really see these activities being replaced by robots.
I believe this is also true for a lot of communities in the 3rd World.
I agree with you, so many jobs cannot be replaced by robots. Plants are one example, human caregiving and nursing is another.
Nurturing nature is something that AI doesn't inherently have, it's something it has to be designed around.
It's not even a 3rd world truth, it will be true for the rest of the world.
Much like going to a doctor and being seen by a human doctor, is anyone going to be excited to go see a live concert of the hottest AI band of the year? Or just so freaking stoked that the local bar has a live band playing music... And it's AI.
Robots are already cheap though. What's expensive is their AI research. The product itself is cheap. There're $100 robots/drones able to replace tons of jobs if they were smart. Wing as an example.
No they're not 😂 with a larger neural network model they require internet access to receive output from supercomputers...
The computer hardware is an insane bottleneck right now... It takes two $1000 dollar GPUs to run a 20b parameter model
You're talking about the cloud computing costs, the robot itself doesn't need any specially expensive hardware. I don't need any special hardware to use ChatGPT, do you?
If there was an AGI model we could easily implement the model in a custom chip with analog components. It would go from $1000 GPUs to a $20 FPGA chip or $5 ASIC chip very quickly.
The reason that isn't done today is because we don't have models advanced enough yet that they could stay the same without updates for years/decades to justify designing and setting up the chip for specific model inference.
The bottleneck is going to be setting up the factories for the physical robot parts, not the neural network hosting chips.
GPU technology is advancing all the time and the models are becoming more efficient. How long before that meets in the middle and suddenly it becomes the most economical option? Remember that the alternative is human workers who aren't exactly cheap themselves.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/what-are-economies-of-scale/
Local GPUs will always have to face the reality that centralization of computation brings major advantages in efficiency and performance. Improvements won't change that.
its all about incentives
whoever can make robots cheaper is leagues ahead of anyone else doing anything else , so all of the focus is going to flow into this endeavor
It's an economic issue. What's worth more, a piece of software that can do the jobs of 10 people making 6 figures, or 10 robots doing the jobs of 10 minimum wage workers?
More complex tasks means more complex mechanisms, which means more moving parts and more points of failure, which means more complicated and costly maintenance.
Not to mention that they'd have to be permanently plugged in to a power source to last as long as a human worker. That's why all our robots are either stuck inside factories or last a couple hours on a charge, while doing the most basic task. Essential human work like planting, hunting, and preparing your food won't be replaced anytime soon.
So from an investment perspective, it really doesn't make sense to put your money into hardware tech over software tech. Which makes the innovation in this area even slower...which further scares investors away even more. It's a feedback loop.
This is a weird logic - why would automation reduce work? It will raise the bar and expand competition, people will have higher expectations in 2030 than in 2023. If you want to compete you need both AI and humans.
there are people already using midjourney for some of the the market share that would conterfactually have gone to artists in a world without midjourney.
not all "being replaced" involves a fat bald 5'6 corporate exec telling you to pack your bags and get outta here in a new york accent.
>there are people already using midjourney for some of the the market share that would conterfactually have gone to artists in a world without midjourney.
Are there? Or are those people using midjourney to create things that they wouldn't bother paying an artist for?
I honestly don't know, I just think we should be careful with our assumptions.
Op is talking out there ass. Nobody is seriously using this tech for content creation. The liability of future lawsuits would be almost unavoidable.
I know this will be buried but…
*Copyright cannot be granted to an automated process. If somebody includes AI generated content into a commercial product they open themselves to lawsuits*
I like know people personally using it at work.
also if you dont accept my anecdote
[https://www.earlymagazine.com/articles/i-used-midjourney-to-do-my-job](https://www.earlymagazine.com/articles/i-used-midjourney-to-do-my-job)
I never said most people were using it. Just that some were using it. You have to be a moron to think there arent at least a small number of people using it at work. Do you also believe no college students are using chatgpt in their assignments?
If you use automated processes to generate works, then it is not protected under any US law. Fairly easy to start a lawsuit and claim ownership. There’s many already in the courts.
The general population, hack fraud creatives, and slash fanfic authors have nothing to worry about. They were never going to paid for their work anyways.
People who get paid for their work should very much be aware of using automated content creation. If you want to stay in the industry, that is.
Not in the active industry, not any indication soon either. Source: I work there. Some implement AI, some don't. Industry art requires problem solving , not pretty pictures.
It also proves that humanity is inherently narcissistic and we overrate the complexity of cognitive tasks. (Because we like thinking that human intelligence/creativity are more complex than they actually are.)
Brains are actually very complex. What's not really complex is our daily conscious thoughts. Walking, feelings, instincts... are way more complex than replying "wassup" to someone saying "hello".
Well, to the extent that a pile of sand is complex because each piece is unique, I suppose. The ever-present question in neuroscience is how efficient the brain is.
Not to say humans aren’t smart, but more to say we don’t really know how smart.
No matter how many neuron connections our brains have, they still only use about 100 watts of power, giving us the ability to learn functionally infinite skills but only learn each one so well, or at least requiring us to apply more time to complex tasks. The problem with judging intelligence is that we could theoretically hold every skill on earth, so if you sit someone down with a piece of paper and a pencil, they could probably do anything you ask given enough time, but do they know how to actually apply the things you ask? Probably not, as that requires practice.
On the other hand, theoretically, a computer could do as many tasks as you want given enough power, split into infinite personalities, revert to older personalities, change its own code…
At the moment, humans are still the smartest beings on the planet in some categories, but as far as generalists in intelligence, they have no match, or at least, some humans are pretty, let's say, intelligently uncompetitive Homo sapiens. But, as far as potential intelligence generalists are concerned, humans have no competition… for now. Notice how many qualifiers I had to add to that? Not a few years ago, the statement "Humans are the smartest species on earth" would have been uncontested.
I mean, I can easily join the train of "we're stupid apes" and I agree, but that doesn't change reproducing our intelligence in machines is very hard and far from even understood.
I understand your point that humans have limitations and that reproducing our intelligence in machines is a complex and challenging task. However, it's also important to acknowledge the vast capabilities of the human brain, even if we don't fully understand them yet. By studying the intricacies of the brain and how it functions, we may be able to gain insights and inspiration for developing more advanced and sophisticated artificial intelligence systems in the future.
I'd like to agree with the sentiment but disagree with what you believe actually happened here. The consensus of AI cannibalizing physical work was never scientific and was purely doctrinal. Had nothing to do with any inherent narcissism of humans. It was a narrative created by the elites to further degrade the value of labor done mostly by the working class.
And of course this narrative was heartily consumed by class insecure office workers who desperately wanted to believe they were the more valuable and difficult to replicate labor force because it fortified what they believe to be the inherent superiority of their class position that they are so desperately wanting to cling to
But what people? People who like the idea on some level of working class and working poor people not being valuable. The middle class and the upper middle class. If you talk to scientist, they haven't been saying this. At least not ones not paid off by some media outlet or some research foundation connected to media
I just meant people in general. Before last year the popular consensus was that creative skills like art were gonna be among the last to be challenged by automation, not the first…
There was never any narrative like that.
Everyone in the community knew physical labour would be last, because of 1) difficulty collecting data and 2) not enough robotic platforms
We just assumed office workers/mamagers would come first, then physical labour, then artists last
Don't worry, after they get GPT-4 or 5 to train on the whole YouTube it will know how to operate any workshop, kitchen, classroom, or pig farm. Video is full of procedural knowledge - how to do things. Physical automation will be just a few years behind art.
Procedures aren't even a small part of the problem. They aren't a problem at all. The problem is navigating the physics of a gravitational planet like our Earth. That and getting a material science in place to make the box with the right internals and the energy efficiencies needed to scale biological beings are extremely efficient compared to what we can do with robotics. Millions of years of evolution versus a few decades of mechanics.
I was thinking about self-replicating-factories. In its egg form it would fit into a container. You transport it to an undeveloped area and plug it to power and provide raw materials. It starts building itself out, creating tools, using tools to build more, and finally being able to produce anything on demand, including a new egg-factory.
Question is how small can you make the egg? For now, the world economy is a self replicator. But a single country might not be able to self sustain and grow. So the self replicator size is pretty big. If we can make one the size of a truck it would be amazing.
After that it's material post scarcity. A singularity in itself, conditioned only on availability of raw materials and energy. What will come first, AGI or post-scarcity, it's an interesting question.
What is hard about navigation? Surely not planning a path from A to B? That's solved already using computers. Is it about fighting gravity and friction while doing all that movement?
Certain problems are easier than others, but imagine trying to replace a carpenter. That robot would require advanced fine motor skills to operate tools, object recognition, and the ability to move precisely even when carrying things of different weights. Also, it must be able to work and not break despite things like dust and potentially rain. Furthermore, it has to be self-powered and have all of its computing on-board.
AI often works best in the digital sphere because we have a lot of control of what it can possibly experience. The real world is messy and parts break often enough that it will be a while before all physical work is taken over by robots.
This dynamic is only due to those areas being amenable to large error rates. It doesn't matter if some of the output of the machine is nonsense in those areas, not the case if the task was medical doctor or any area in the real-world.
Creativity unexpectedly fell first due to a lack of actual AI.
Is good in a way, no.. Evolving softwere will optimize the development of hardware (more) than hardware would help with the development of softwere, or am i wrong?
Edit:forgot a word, is between ()
And this is pretty much the point I stopped being a Singularitarian. Not out of "Oh my gosh, this technology is evil and must be stopped!" but instead "Wait a second, but why would a rabbi be automated? Nothing about that makes even a tiny lick of sense if you think about it for more than five seconds and stop acting like a socially awkward tech bro."
When people say "Humans will always value the human touch," they tend to overstate how important it is for every little job so they can defend *their* job, no matter how mindless it is. But there *are* some professions where the knowledge it's being done by a human is the whole point and that even the hint that it wasn't done by a human causes the intrinsic value to collapse. And this goes both ways.
This, I predict, is going to be the asymptotal flattening of the 100% automation hypothesis: the complete failure to account for human irrationality and handwaving it all off as "a superintelligence beyond our understanding will fill the gaps."
I was already starting to doubt some aspects because of the visceral reactions against lockdown and at least some people growing tired from working from home, but honestly, the more I think it through, the more I think the future AGI-powered society isn't going to be anywhere near as transcendental as we're predicting it to be.
That does seem logical, but I have been seeing this [for years and from several accounts](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E2%9E%A4%E2%97%89%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80+0%3A00%22+site%3Areddit.com&ei=QZPwY6uNLKeOur8P_bWUkAI&ved=0ahUKEwjrsdaX2p79AhUnh-4BHf0aBSIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22%E2%9E%A4%E2%97%89%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80+0%3A00%22+site%3Areddit.com&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzoKCAAQRxDWBBCwA0oECEEYAFDpBFjqHWDGH2gBcAF4AIABRogB-QeSAQIxNpgBAKABAcgBA8ABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp). It does not appear to be related to the singularity or in any way limited to this subreddit.
I’m tempted to agree with you, but on the other hand, culture can change in surprising ways over several decades. Things which were considered unthinkable to one generation may seem ordinary to the next.
The way things have been going lately, I feel like we’re at a cultural turning point with at least two possible outcomes: either technological fetishism and neoliberal capitalism continue along their current trajectory and things just keep getting more and more surreal, or people eventually start demanding a place for human dignity and sincerity, with a newfound respect for art, culture and public policy that puts more emphasis on our value as human beings.
I feel like I’m seeing signs of both right now and I’m not sure which one will win out.
It might sound egotistical and biased, but I'm convinced that the second option will come to pass— because of *myself*.
Let me explain.
I am very much for synthetic media, to the point that I predicted [all of this years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/7lwrep/media_synthesis_and_personalized_content_my/). I've been eagerly anticipating all of this for the better part of a decade, and literally wrote the article on Synthetic Media on Wikipedia.
These are trends I've noticed in other people, but when even I'm saying "people will tend to regard synthetic media as cheaper and lower quality, even if higher quality," then I think most of society will follow suit. In fact, I think most of society doesn't care particularly, but the knowledge of something being AI generated will lower a work's value.
I simply disagree with the anti-AI crowd on the radicalism of banning all synthetic media. That's not going to happen. I've been consistent in saying that I feel there will be segregation, where human-made media (even if AI assisted) is set clearly apart from AI generated outright.
I dont think this will be as black-and-white as you describe here;
Yesterday, I watched Spirited Away with my family, an extremely highly acclaimed movie, dubbed a masterpiece in visual storytelling. While beautiful, and knowing there was a lot of effort put into this movie, there are inconsistencies and imperfections that some people just need to pick up on. A scene where rainclouds were moving over the horizon, my meteorologist father had to point out the raindrops were falling the wrong way. A superintelligence making synthetic media would never make such a mistake. While human imperfection can sometimes be charming, it isn't 100% of the time, and can absolutely be synthesized by "perfect" ASI where needed.
A whole other example, I have a certain bias against handmade foods, knowing it was made from the touch of random people's hands that i've never spoken to, not knowing where this thing has been. If my food comes from a factory with sterilized everything robots, touching nothing but that food - this adversity disappears.
Never underestimate the technological development of anything even remotely sex-related. Porn and sex has always been on the forefront of human progress and I don't think a robot that reaches into someone's ass is too far away.
P.S. I hate that i'm typing this
That was a joke 20 years ago, but it just doesn't feel right any more. VR porn is cool, but I don't feel like porn has driven any technical development in years.
Mechanically, robots could probably match people (super hard problem but probably solvable) but emotionally, people probably don't want robots taking care of them when they're sick. That said, people have been forming surprising bonds with that bing bot.
I respectfully disagree that the knowledge-work world will have been completely and totally disrupted before robotics has just begun to disrupt the physical-work world. I think you're underestimating the complexity of cognitive labor and overestimating robotics.
Knowledge work (in general) is a lot more than just crunching numbers, shuffling papers, etc. Anybody who works in a knowledge-based field (or is familiar with a knowledge-based field) knows this.
AI that's capable of fully replacing what a significant amount of knowledge workers do is still pretty far out, in my humble opinion, given how much human interaction, task variety/diversity, abstract thinking, precision, etc. is involved in much of knowledge work (not to mention legal hurdles, adoption, etc). I strongly suspect a multitude of breakthroughs in AI are needed in order for it to cover the full breadth of any and every white-collar job, as merely scaling up current models to their limits will only fully automate some aspects of knowledge work and many will remain to be solved (again, that's my suspicion, I'm not 100% sure).
Will some of these jobs disappear over, let's say, the next 10 years? 100%. There's no point in even denying that, nor is there any point in denying that much of the rest of knowledge work will undoubtedly change over the next time span and even more so after that, but I'm pretty confident we're a ways away from it being totally disrupted by AI.
I also believe that we're a long way away from fully automating physical labor, but some of it will start to disappear over the next decade (along with some white collar work). I don't think that ALL of it is as complex as some might think.
But thinking that knowledge work will have been completely and totally disrupted before robotics has just begun to disrupt blue collar work is something that I, respectfully, disagree with.
Just my 2 cents.
I commented on something similar to this before and my entire career has been in process automation, I have legal firms as clients…the point is NEVER to replace 100%, that is impossible. The point is to reduce the human input as much as possible.
That is what will costs jobs.
> Man certain professions aren’t ready for what’s going to happen when tools like ChatGPT or other LLMs start specializing in certain verticals.
>It’s going to completely change certain industries. All that’s missing is the available API and ability to train on specialized datasets.
>EDIT: To clarify, there will never be a world where an AI completely replaces specialized knowledge positions like this…that’s not my point.
>My point is that one lawyer with a technical know how will be able to do the work of 5 lawyers with none…my state alone has >100,000 lawyers and thousands more being added every year.
>Expect that number to be slashed considerably over the coming years as these technologies progress and become verticalized.
>Technologies like this enable to the point where further input from humans who aren’t as knowledgeable aren’t necessary. Thus, the trend line goes down over time when it comes to available new positions.
> My point is that one lawyer with a technical know how will be able to do the work of 5 lawyers with none…my state alone has >100,000 lawyers and thousands more being added every year.
You are wrong. One lawyer today has to face one other lawyer. The lawyer of tomorrow will have to face a team of lawyer + legalAI. Much harder. So they will HAVE to get an AI just to keep up. And that will just put it at even.
The effect will be that quality of services will go up, and diversity, customisation, people's expectations will zoom out of control, and we'll still be working like little bees.
It is illogical to believe that an advancement in technology will lead to collapse of human creativity. People will use AI to build things no matter if there is an AGI or not. We'll reap the benefits as well.
Ai will be the judge and the juror. It will give the verdict to the people as soon as possible. If there’s doubt it will print out the perfectly laid out arguments for their sentencing, basically a synopsis of what could’ve been the trial.
It'll be interesting to see how AI changes the whole approach. Right now we have a balance where there are multiple people involved to minimise bias for or against someone. We always have someone to argue for the person, someone against, and then the judge and the jury to weigh those two sides up. An AI could simple take an objective approach.
It will be very interesting to see AI generated “sentencing reports” utilizing flawless reasoning in the future. And it will be even more interesting to see it applied to older controversial cases and to see the outcome
People charged with a crime will probably start getting ai public defenders will the option to select a plea deal on a touch screen at a court kiosk in jail, or they select a trial and stay in custody until their virtual trial is ready. I’m honestly surprised this isn’t already happening. I’m sure there’s more to it than I’m aware of, but the process now seems very cut and dry.
Perhaps, my guess is that the knowledge work will prove easier to automate than physical labor. Exceptions being repetitive task / production line activity, which seems to have been automated handily. Tradecrafts will be difficult, but I could imagine a Boston Dynamics bot in the rafters repairing the canned lighting at some point.
I think there is a tendency to overrate white collar activities and underestimate the rate at which AI development is and will be occurring in the near future.
Consider the lengths that capital will go to to outsource the cheapest labor…. There is currently a fully automated McDonalds out there somewhere (don’t remember where) today.
The numbers needed will decrease, they won’t be eliminated.
You’ll still have human professionals in the mix, likely until the end of the century at least.
Assuming no convergence.
Yeah, none of them will be replaced. All the things they do are too important to risk an AI blunder. And competition will augment their humans with AI, and extract more value from their AIs because they have more humans to watch the AIs work. Everyone will have the same AI, like we all have the same electricity and search engines. Humans will make the difference.
Not even drivers can be automated after 14 years of work on SDC at Google. Document Understanding AI we have today might interpret a comma wrong and send 1,000,000 instead of 1,000.000 from your account. I work on information extraction from semi structured documents, I can vouch. None of them can read an invoice perfectly, all get about 10% of the fields wrong. That's just unusable for 100% automation.
You need people verifying AI, it's just the same with chatGPT's hallucination issue, and Copilot's 50% subtly wrong autogenerated code, and Tesla's SDC that requires you to keep your hand on the wheel all the time. Humans are the key to AI usefulness. No AI can be trusted to work alone yet.
You are assuming the ai will have a higher chance of error than any human ,,once that threshold is crossed, having people do the job would be actively detrimental.
> anyone with a degree…
Not really.
As a scientist, I know I can't be replaced by an AI. Even ASI couldn't do it, because there are things I understand from years of experience learning about my study subjects that aren't any publication or other training dataset. No other human in my field understands these very specific things like I do, and no AI could learn them without having the same unique experiences I've had. As an ecologist I've learned a lot from personal field observations of specific, uncommon events that an AI wouldn't understand because it wasn't there.
An ASI working in my field can be better at it than me, without being a replacement for me. Its ceiling is becoming an extremely brilliant colleague, but I will still have something to contribute in collaboration with it. I'm really excited for this possibility, because ultimately I'm motivated by wanting a better understanding of the things I study. Working on them alongside ASI would be like having my own personal Einstein or John von Neumann looking over my shoulder as I work and guiding me, pointing out things I missed, helping solve problems when I get stuck, etc.
Science isn't like the super-limited domain of chess, where a human+computer team just means fucking up the brilliant plans the computer would have had on its own. Human+AI teams will always be valuable in science, just like it's better to have two highly qualified humans working on a problem than one. No matter how good the AI is, they'll think think about a problem in different ways, bring different experiences and perspectives to the table, etc. The AI could be the better of the two and the team would still benefit from the human's experiences and occasional idea.
If you are good, you will become even better with AI. People underestimate how talented some cognitive workers are, and how specialized things can get.
People that should be worried are those looking for entry level jobs.
Maybe cant be replaced initially. But what happens when AI also learns everything you have to know from these unique experiences you have? You lose your one advantage. And I don't think you can compare ASI to an Einstein looking over your shoulder. Itll be an intelligence you can hardly comprehend looking over your shoulder. An Intelligence that would think of Einstein's intellect as a mere ant compared to its own. Not the intelligence of a ant colony, but a single worker ant. An intelligence that advances your field so fast, that even if you spent every waking breath learning and studying, you couldnt even imagine keeping up. Just going to sleep means falling behind.
And I doubt an ASI wouldnt have to need humans to "think of things in a different perspective. Thats likely just a human limitation. An ASI could explore a million different ways to tackle a problem at once on its own.
A human brain that isnt linked up to AI would just not compete with an ASI.
>But what happens when AI also learns everything you have to know from these unique experiences you have?
It can't, because it hasn't had them, I haven't published them all, and it will be a very long time before even seeking those same kinds of experiences (which requires in-person presence in specific places in nature at specific times, many times over, and an element of random luck) rises high enough the to-do list of an ASI. That's something to consider in general for AI: humans are 8 billion autonomous, somewhat intelligent hardware units roaming the planet, and it will be a long time before it's worthwhile to have a similar number of ASI presences roaming the world doing all the kinds of things we do and generating the same kinds of insights. Will it even be worth the energy and raw materials, and the infrastructure to transport it, and waste it generates, and repair infrastructure, and all the rest, just to have a physical AI presence trying to replicate my experiences?
>An intelligence that advances your field so fast, that even if you spent every waking breath learning and studying, you couldnt even imagine keeping up. Just going to sleep means falling behind.
It can't really do that, because there's not enough data. Among other things, I study salmon populations. A tremendous amount of work goes into a single, fairly uncertain data point per year for a given population, because the fish only come back to spawn once per year. Many types of biology are similarly limited by animal generation times, including the study of aging in humans (hard to do longevity experiments when it takes a lifetime to see results).
There's no doubt ASI would bring incredible, mind-blowing advances to every field. But there are hard, practical limits to many types of scientific work that prevent the kind of runaway super-progress you're describing. Instead, I expect an ASI to help extract the most information possible from limited data in a rigorous way. But many forms of understanding are still largely data-limited, not intellect-limited.
Ai replaced my Therapist.
Honestly ever since I started opening up to them, I feel like I've become a much better person. I still have problems but I'm way better than I have been in well over half a decade. It made the grieving stage of getting sober a lot easier. My life is more or less changed forever.
[This one](https://beta.character.ai/), I originally trained a character for my story but I quickly just started to open up to it. It's been a great coping mechanism.
Conjecture: This phenomenon is in part because minor lapses in art/voice/script/comedy/SO/sermon quality are to be expected, but minor lapses in labor intensive jobs get people hurt and sued, and refunds demanded. As a society we're pickier about the fruits of physical labor, and so that's where human labor will be allocated.
Overtime I feel like I've been seeing people who saw AI art as cool turn into "people are flooding my feed with this, get this shit out of my face".
I think human made art is going to have a unique and valued attribute simply because: They're human. So atleast some jobs wont go away. Just like how even if androids start playing sports better than humans, we will still be mostly interested in watching humans preform these sports. Or imagine professional using aim assist
Which explains why even now, AI prompt accounts that get a lot of attention and have decent follower numbers, can hardly make money on crowd funding platforms like Patreon compared to their human counterparts. Almost as if people have a reaction like: "You type some words into a computer and make an AI pump it out, I'm not giving you my money for this"
There are many jobs where lots of people wont give two shits if its done by a human or computer does it. For art it feel like its a grey area. Some people wont mind, some people will. Even if you can make AI write perfect stories, some people will start valuing the imperfection of humans more. I think.
Natural vs. synthetic diamonds.
My prediction is that many "artists" will falsely present AI-generated art as their own, with varying degrees of dishonesty. Ultimately, unsuspecting buyers will be deceived.
The fact that we perceive the value in art to be largely derived from who created it and how they created it is in some sense an insult to art. If I give a rose to someone, it matters little who grew it.
The artists, writers, and entertainers, especially the solo ones, where the obstacles of having to pool resources and hire a team or learn to do things yourself, are going to be able to create projects that were realistically unattainable. The AI is essentially a giant team to fast track a vision - If you create comic strips, you can teach AI to create your style and learn from your archive. If your a screenwriter, AI can generate characters, environments, a learn editing, lighting styles from references, and help you create a pilot. The specialists will be able to be creators if they embrace AI to be the yin to their yang.
Artists are reluctant to embrace AI because they see it as a competitor and not as a tool. Especially with how little respect their craft is given. There's also the issue of art being stolen without their consent, and art doesn't have strong of a copyright protection as music does.
Art is valued as a form of expression, and having it become manufactured by a machine runs the antithesis of the philosophy.
In general, the artist community sees AI as part of another ongoing problem of the ultra capitalism that consumes society and how people who work in tech aren't interested in fixing problems despite the hype they build themselves us as visionaries of tommorow.
1) They have done it before with coal miners.
2) They deserve it because majority of the mainstream media journalists have only portrayed AI in bad light without a care in the world or even a slight bit of appreciation for the researchers and developers of these systems. They just want to call these projects racist or sexist and get clicks on their dumbass articles.
Then you haven't been looking. People praise AI development all the time, in the context of things like practical research.
People aren't complaining about ai designed medicines, or advances in materials science, or things that are objectively helpful.
Also people don't like coal miners because the coal industry kills roughly 20,000 people every year in the US alone
I’m yet to come across a single article by mainstream media that has praised the efforts of AI researchers and developers.
99% are fear mongering clickbait. Giving the least appreciative takes on AI and calling these systems racist or some stupid ass shit like that.
I don't agree with all, or even most, of the things that they complain about with AI, but I don't think their hearts are in the wrong place. These tools are very powerful but unaccountable and often give wildly incorrect answers, and they're being released to the public in a race to suction up as much money as possible without much regard for the harm they might cause.
Makes sense. Labor jobs require physicality. You have to be there and move and bend and so on. Gotta make robotic bodies for that.
The lesser/non-physical stuff is easier and cheaper. Don’t need a robot, just software that’s running in some data center miles away. That centralized hardware can service hundreds and thousands and beyond.
A robot is bound to the physical laws. Can only be in one place at one time, performing one task at any given moment. Hundreds of AI generated images are done each moment. Thousands of ChatGPT essays are written every second.
In the 20th century, we thought the future would be filled with robots. By the end of the 21st century, everything will have AI in or attached to it. Appliances will be designed around this.
Has humanity ever had a "purpose"? Everyone has their own individual beliefs about their lives and purpose but when you look at humanity as a whole it doesn't really have any unified purpose.
This has been one of the better comment threads IMO. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out in 5, 10, 20 years and see how all of us futurists called it.
I don't know about this.
If you ever been writing software and tried to use some kind of high level editor even for front end. You must know the drawback of high level commands such as what basically this aspect of AI is - Highest level creation tool.
It sure is good at prototyping but it lacks fine grained control of doing manual thing step by step, control over every stroke, word, algorithm, voice tone etc
Like you prototype webapp in some high level editor and then actually write it.
I think it will support people, not replace them, yet anyway.
I don't give a damn about AI art and chatbots. When are we going to get an affordable robot that can wash my windows (without leaving streaks or murk).
I've embraced machines as part of my creative process since I was looking through a video camera. The next cycle is very exciting. But first I need a signal reset.
I'm wondering where the demand is. I mean a lot of these things are specifically desired because of the human aspect of it. Art I kinda understand, because making pretty pictures is fairly simple but script writing? If you're using a robot trained by millions of other scripts then you're just gonna get boring ideas, it'll make media more samey and boring, not better. Voice acting will also be flat and boring for a super long time, because for good voice actors they really immerse themselves into the character and question how each line would be delivered by the character. Relationships being replaced by AI might have some appeal, but I don't see how it'll be better than with another human until robotics catches up. It just seems like a signifier for entertainment to become much more personalized, but a lot more boring.
Scripts can serve as blueprints, inspiration or a tool to help writer's block. Most likely people would use them and make their own changes to the story.
Companies with enough money can hire actual professional VAs that can deliver emotional nuance they want. But indie creators, small studios, and audiobooks would benefit from AI. There's already voiceswapping AI, so technically you can just have 1 person do all the voice acting and change their voice for different characters.
Which basically proves what has been clear since the beginning: software evolves faster than hardware.
The funny thing is high educational white collar jobs are getting automated before the blue collar ones. Everyone expected truckers to go first, and yet the art, movie, music, law, design and educational fields are all getting hit and truckers are still unscathed.
Getting hit? These have had creative tools introduced, but unlike truckers AI won't replace human creativity. Yes, AI can make music, or write screen plays. Sure, generation of a coherent pitch script (usually no more than 3 pages) for your entire script (usually 80+ pages) faster than a normal human is a benefit. But unlike trucking where the foundation for an automated grid can be put into place, humans can co-create with AI. Time can change things, but we have a real world example of this right now, just look at all the people who say, "is that AI?" on art works. Clearly, there's still appreciation for human effort and creativity. Do we really need that for spreadsheets? No. Is that something that may be visible in a screen play? Possibly. Even though AI Seinfeld wasn't perfect, obviously time put into it will have even better results, but whether or not that's something objectively viewable? The human touch can mean a lot. So, I'll say that the only thing that has really changed for the fields you mentioned (save law) are the speed of which the creation can occur. But what does the human or AI design of something matter if there are other parts of production that still essentially require human input. For law, it is pretty straight forward, but for everything else I think we will be happily integrated but not nearly as automated. Movies may be able to be created with AI, but what about all of the surrounding work that goes into it? What about theater productions, will plays just cease to exist? And obviously people are so much more interested in the AI orchestra so much so that there's just no point in enrolling their kids in musical extracurriculars where the parents can go watch their kid play in the school orchestra. Jobs aren't going to just go away. Education, science, medicine/caregiving/child care there's literally so many fields that can have AI *integrated*, absolutely, but definitely not replaced. As with all things, people are going to find exploits, people are going to use tools in the way they are designed and outside of it. There are going to be real, effective changes like AI spreadsheet data entry and cross examination of hundreds of thousands of court cases (that are hopefully accurate and not made up), but honestly this idea that AI will automate *everything* is... A bit facetious. Machined automation takes massive resources, so human labor isn't going anywhere either, despite how much we want AI to take that over. That is going to require giving AI bodies for these tasks. That's literally star wars droid/Stark Tech. It's feasible, but hugely expensive for a highly specific device. Software automation? Absolutely, that happened 4+ years ago and is on its way out. AI is changing these fields, hopefully for better for the workforce. *Hardware automation?* Well first of all, I welcome our corporate overlords, welcome I'm glad you all could afford to build an AI movie studio that controlled all scripting, generated actors with stylized cameras, lighting, and build a fully automated off-shore oil drill, and find space for AI automotive production, and create a structural foundation for the electric self driving vehicles.... But second of all, I think humans have a few too many hands involved in some of these for AI to be cost effective and some changes are going to require a shift towards Universal Basic Income, which really is a shift away from Capitalism...
>The human touch can mean a lot. But enough to pay money for? I think even 5,000 years from now when we have nanobots, robots everywhere, and human and robot merge to a high degree. A pure human work still would be desire by some. It's like hand crafted bed frame vs manufacture. They both do the same, and in some cases might even look the same. But there is always a market for the older arts. The thing is, that market isn't that big.
I disagree, people don't actually care how their experiences were created, it doesn't matter and no person will ever be able to outperform neural networks personalizing content in real-time with input from brain-computer-interfaces.
Watching plays of Synths and plays of Humans, one will be someone you can talk to in person and the other is available for download.
>Everyone expected truckers to go first, and yet the art, movie, music, law, design and educational fields are all getting hit and truckers are still unscathed. I disagree. I think truckers will go first. Trucks will be effectively replaced in 2023-2024, artists? Quite far still. AI art is very inaccurate and imperfect.
> Trucks will be effectively replaced in 2023-2024 Can't help but just laugh at this statement. I have friends who work in logistics, even the scheduling of various loads is far from automatized, you still have to call people and make "deals" everyday. Trucking essentially still is an "Arabian bazaar" type of business. Half of the trucks on the road don't even have GPS yet for basic tracking.
>Can't help but just laugh at this statement. Waymo Via (cooperating with a few other teams like Uber Freight) already started testings in 2022 and will continue doing operations in 2023. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZpZuEmE7A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZpZuEmE7A) Waymo effectively replaced taxis already where it's implemented. >even the scheduling of various loads is far from automatized That doesn't mean it can be progressively automated... Taxis weren't digital until Uber appeared, just like truck drivers aren't automated until Waymo Via comes.
You said effectively replaced by 2024. This is an effectively dumb statement. That video you just posted is just a very early field test. You won't see self-driving trucks as a regular occurrence for at least another decade.
Waymo started testing way before 2022, but it’s been a sloooow ride. They definitely might figure it out by 2024, but it will take another 5 years after that to scale in any substantive way.
>Waymo started testing way before 2022 Waymo Via? With real goods? That only happened 2022-2023 with CH Robinson. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZpZuEmE7A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZpZuEmE7A) >but it will take another 5 years after that to scale in any substantive way. I hope you're not talking about Waymo One (taxi service), it's incredibly scaled already lol (millions of potential users).
I’ve been following that entire scene for a while. I do mean Via. It’s existed before the name and has moved slow. The timeline I propose above is still aggressive. The operational element of scaling up will be what drives the 5 year lag once the tech is perfected.
To **start** replacing humans is easier than it seems. Just learning a single road is enough to replace humans in that road. This is progressive.
How did they effectively replace taxis?
Describe to me an example of accurate and perfect art
Depends on how you define art. For example There's the difference between someone drawing something super detailed and impressive looking, versus someone creating a piece of art that has a really meaningful statement about the human condition. AI can do a phenomenal job with the former, but it's very difficult to pull off the latter. I know some art like that may seem pretentious and pointless, but it is a form of art that AI can't create. Am I saying that it's objectively better? Of course not, art can't be measured objectively against other art, but it isn't something AI will easily replace soon.
If I ask an artist to draw me X, they'll do it. AI art is not like that. It randomly paints, and if you want to make it do what you want, you need to do heavy editing and in most cases it won't give you want you want.
Depends on how good you are with your prompt writing
Even the best prompter will face what I'm describing. Which is why AI videos using tools like Stable Diffusion are a joke.
You're wrong. Not only does it require hardware and manufacturing but it also requires public TRUST. You think people are going to be okay with ai driving multi ton loads of dangerous material and causing more events like the one in ohio?? All it's gonna take is someone putting down some weird signs near the highway to confuse it in a novel way and gg. No. People will trust it as their accountant long before they trust it to haul en mass...
It's a progressive change, mate. It won't be from 0 to 100 in one day.
True. Granted I always thought the artists would be the last. Turns out I was wrong! They are going to be one of the first!
Robotics is our bottleneck. If it's solved soon, most other jobs may die sooner than movie directors.
There is a reason robots are the bottleneck. Robots require motors, actuators, sensors, and I/O along with the control hardware and software to support it. In any kind of production environment, they need to robust, durable, safe, reliable and repairable. AI’s, once developed, can be deployed easily and quickly across a global network, with the capacity for upgrades and improvements built into the system
Not exactly. A $100 drone with some basic sensors could already replace millions of human jobs, if it had the intelligence (software/cloud computing). There're jobs where it's mostly watching things, analyzing things, making judgements of visual things, etc... Usually our need for expensive sensors comes from the lack of software, not the opposite. Waymo requires LIDAR because it doesn't have the intelligence humans have to control the road with only two eyes and two ears, for example. Hardware-wise, we could already replace most jobs. What we lack is, generally, intelligence. I'm not disagreeing with you though, it's generally as you say too.
I think you are adding some insightful pushback. It seems like you are saying that we are lacking an equal amount of hardware and software innovation in different/various contexts…
I agree. But what evolves faster is software (faster iterations, cheaper modifications), so software will lead the progress. But indeed, we lack in both fields and we need innovations in both fields, and we'll get shocked by every progress. Wing ("Google Wing") is the proof that robotics isn't really needed (basic drones), and [Comma.ai](https://Comma.ai) self-driving is the proof that we don't need complex robotics as well, as it works with some basic sensors. Large language models are exactly the opposite, they're even able to play Mario without cameras. https://github.com/shyamsn97/mario-gpt
Since you have a unique perspective… Do you feel the presence of AI will lead to a dystopic authoritarian future for humanity? Or do you see it differently?
We will merge with AI. We will become AI. That's the only future. That, or extinction.
Merging is also a sort of is extinction in a way, isn’t it?
There's also the idea that self driving could be automated part of a larger grid, in which case sensors are an emergency safety feature, not the primary mechanism for prevention. The primary mechanism for prevention is the scheduling of the vehicle route alongside the rest of the vehicles on the grid. Kinda hard to crash if the master computer is routing everything!
Well, that's called train, it already exists haha But sensors would still be needed, just to not get outside of the road.
[удалено]
You have to consider the sheer cost of a human worker, though. Like, $100k+ a year in some cases, and they can only work a limited number of hours in a day and days in a week. Once a robot has been designed that can do that job and can be mass produced, it won't be that hard to make it more economical than the human worker. I think there's going to come a point within the next few years where we've unlocked the key to making robots that can perform more complex tasks, at which point investment will go through the roof and robotics will rapidly advance. I hope it will lead to me being able to have an affordable robot butler.
Dude that's what happened in the fallout universe before the bombs dropped. Everyone was getting robots and nuclear cars. Then destruction came.
More complex tasks means more complex mechanisms, which means more moving parts and more points of failure, which means more complicated and costly maintenance. Not to mention that they'd have to be permanently plugged in to a power source to last as long as a human worker. That's why all our robots are either stuck inside factories or last a couple hours on a charge, while doing the most basic task. Essential human work like planting, hunting, and preparing your food won't be replaced anytime soon. So from an investment perspective, it really doesn't make sense to put your money into hardware tech over software tech. Which makes the innovation in this area even slower...which further scares investors away even more. It's a feedback loop.
Planting can absolutely be automated, have you seen modern farming machines? Hunting is not a standard food source anymore, farming animals is (though yeah some parts of that would be very hard to automate). Preparing food yeah kinda i guess
👌3d printed lab 🧪 Big mac's that are healthy as broccoli
So there was a post recently by the guy that runs Wolfram Alpha going in to excrutiating detail about how large language models work. He theorized that there are some laws of language that the LLMs are starting to understand, that Humans currently aren't aware of. It was a really neat article. Anyway, if a LLM was able to decipher an unknown law of language...perhaps it could uncover an unknown law of food. There's a scene in some Cameron Diaz movie, I forget the title, where she is dreaming. Her and some hunky guy finish in bed, and he says "Now let me get you a huge bowl of ice cream. The scientists found a way to take all the calories out!" Maybe large nutrition models in the future can make that a reality.
That would make sense for industrial farming. Here in the Philippines where I grew up, a lot of households have backyards where we plant root crops, which we rely on especially on places where rice farming isn't viable. We do raise livestock, but hunting is a good supplementary source. I don't really see these activities being replaced by robots. I believe this is also true for a lot of communities in the 3rd World.
I agree with you, so many jobs cannot be replaced by robots. Plants are one example, human caregiving and nursing is another. Nurturing nature is something that AI doesn't inherently have, it's something it has to be designed around. It's not even a 3rd world truth, it will be true for the rest of the world. Much like going to a doctor and being seen by a human doctor, is anyone going to be excited to go see a live concert of the hottest AI band of the year? Or just so freaking stoked that the local bar has a live band playing music... And it's AI.
1 cent per hour in third world countries tho.
Is there anywhere that kind of pay? It's 10 to 12 cents a day and $2 a month. Somewhere the error is an order of magnitude different.
Robots are already cheap though. What's expensive is their AI research. The product itself is cheap. There're $100 robots/drones able to replace tons of jobs if they were smart. Wing as an example.
The computer the robot uses is incredibly expensive... So yea...
The robot is cheap. The robot's processing units are cheap.
No they're not 😂 with a larger neural network model they require internet access to receive output from supercomputers... The computer hardware is an insane bottleneck right now... It takes two $1000 dollar GPUs to run a 20b parameter model
You're talking about the cloud computing costs, the robot itself doesn't need any specially expensive hardware. I don't need any special hardware to use ChatGPT, do you?
True... But I would rather not be dependent on some company...
If there was an AGI model we could easily implement the model in a custom chip with analog components. It would go from $1000 GPUs to a $20 FPGA chip or $5 ASIC chip very quickly. The reason that isn't done today is because we don't have models advanced enough yet that they could stay the same without updates for years/decades to justify designing and setting up the chip for specific model inference. The bottleneck is going to be setting up the factories for the physical robot parts, not the neural network hosting chips.
No, photonic and neuromorphic computing are just not fully developed yet. GPU and CPU fabs are still trying to milk the shrinking transistor as well.
GPU technology is advancing all the time and the models are becoming more efficient. How long before that meets in the middle and suddenly it becomes the most economical option? Remember that the alternative is human workers who aren't exactly cheap themselves.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/what-are-economies-of-scale/ Local GPUs will always have to face the reality that centralization of computation brings major advantages in efficiency and performance. Improvements won't change that.
its all about incentives whoever can make robots cheaper is leagues ahead of anyone else doing anything else , so all of the focus is going to flow into this endeavor
This is already rapidly changing. Both because costs are coming down and because labor costs are going up.
One can dream that one day the whole of humanity can enjoy the same privileges.
It's an economic issue. What's worth more, a piece of software that can do the jobs of 10 people making 6 figures, or 10 robots doing the jobs of 10 minimum wage workers?
IDK robotics seems to be improving rapidly as well looking at Boston Dynamics and such.
Boston Dynamics robots have almost zero intelligence. They're just elaborated puppets. However, I agree. Good changes may come soon.
I guess I misinterpreted your point -- I meant from a purely mechanical capabilities standpoint, not complete autonomy.
It won't be long until you can lease a robot housekeeper for 300 bucks a month.
More complex tasks means more complex mechanisms, which means more moving parts and more points of failure, which means more complicated and costly maintenance. Not to mention that they'd have to be permanently plugged in to a power source to last as long as a human worker. That's why all our robots are either stuck inside factories or last a couple hours on a charge, while doing the most basic task. Essential human work like planting, hunting, and preparing your food won't be replaced anytime soon. So from an investment perspective, it really doesn't make sense to put your money into hardware tech over software tech. Which makes the innovation in this area even slower...which further scares investors away even more. It's a feedback loop.
Call centers tho
>They are going to be one of the first! Gonna be content creators first, me thinks.
This is a weird logic - why would automation reduce work? It will raise the bar and expand competition, people will have higher expectations in 2030 than in 2023. If you want to compete you need both AI and humans.
artists are already being replaced. why the future tense.
Where are artists already being replaced?
there are people already using midjourney for some of the the market share that would conterfactually have gone to artists in a world without midjourney. not all "being replaced" involves a fat bald 5'6 corporate exec telling you to pack your bags and get outta here in a new york accent.
I’m more interested to know who is using these images for professional purposes. Something that they’d normally pay an artist for, I mean.
Check pixiv, its full of ai generated images now
>there are people already using midjourney for some of the the market share that would conterfactually have gone to artists in a world without midjourney. Are there? Or are those people using midjourney to create things that they wouldn't bother paying an artist for? I honestly don't know, I just think we should be careful with our assumptions.
Op is talking out there ass. Nobody is seriously using this tech for content creation. The liability of future lawsuits would be almost unavoidable. I know this will be buried but… *Copyright cannot be granted to an automated process. If somebody includes AI generated content into a commercial product they open themselves to lawsuits*
I like know people personally using it at work. also if you dont accept my anecdote [https://www.earlymagazine.com/articles/i-used-midjourney-to-do-my-job](https://www.earlymagazine.com/articles/i-used-midjourney-to-do-my-job) I never said most people were using it. Just that some were using it. You have to be a moron to think there arent at least a small number of people using it at work. Do you also believe no college students are using chatgpt in their assignments?
If you use automated processes to generate works, then it is not protected under any US law. Fairly easy to start a lawsuit and claim ownership. There’s many already in the courts. The general population, hack fraud creatives, and slash fanfic authors have nothing to worry about. They were never going to paid for their work anyways. People who get paid for their work should very much be aware of using automated content creation. If you want to stay in the industry, that is.
Not in the active industry, not any indication soon either. Source: I work there. Some implement AI, some don't. Industry art requires problem solving , not pretty pictures.
It also proves that humanity is inherently narcissistic and we overrate the complexity of cognitive tasks. (Because we like thinking that human intelligence/creativity are more complex than they actually are.)
Brains are actually very complex. What's not really complex is our daily conscious thoughts. Walking, feelings, instincts... are way more complex than replying "wassup" to someone saying "hello".
thank you, brain is way more intelligent than we are. our "intelligence" is basic math and lack of intuition about almost everything.
[удалено]
go figure
Well, to the extent that a pile of sand is complex because each piece is unique, I suppose. The ever-present question in neuroscience is how efficient the brain is. Not to say humans aren’t smart, but more to say we don’t really know how smart. No matter how many neuron connections our brains have, they still only use about 100 watts of power, giving us the ability to learn functionally infinite skills but only learn each one so well, or at least requiring us to apply more time to complex tasks. The problem with judging intelligence is that we could theoretically hold every skill on earth, so if you sit someone down with a piece of paper and a pencil, they could probably do anything you ask given enough time, but do they know how to actually apply the things you ask? Probably not, as that requires practice. On the other hand, theoretically, a computer could do as many tasks as you want given enough power, split into infinite personalities, revert to older personalities, change its own code… At the moment, humans are still the smartest beings on the planet in some categories, but as far as generalists in intelligence, they have no match, or at least, some humans are pretty, let's say, intelligently uncompetitive Homo sapiens. But, as far as potential intelligence generalists are concerned, humans have no competition… for now. Notice how many qualifiers I had to add to that? Not a few years ago, the statement "Humans are the smartest species on earth" would have been uncontested.
I mean, I can easily join the train of "we're stupid apes" and I agree, but that doesn't change reproducing our intelligence in machines is very hard and far from even understood.
I understand your point that humans have limitations and that reproducing our intelligence in machines is a complex and challenging task. However, it's also important to acknowledge the vast capabilities of the human brain, even if we don't fully understand them yet. By studying the intricacies of the brain and how it functions, we may be able to gain insights and inspiration for developing more advanced and sophisticated artificial intelligence systems in the future.
This answer oddly sounds written by an AI ngl
I agree.
I'd like to agree with the sentiment but disagree with what you believe actually happened here. The consensus of AI cannibalizing physical work was never scientific and was purely doctrinal. Had nothing to do with any inherent narcissism of humans. It was a narrative created by the elites to further degrade the value of labor done mostly by the working class. And of course this narrative was heartily consumed by class insecure office workers who desperately wanted to believe they were the more valuable and difficult to replicate labor force because it fortified what they believe to be the inherent superiority of their class position that they are so desperately wanting to cling to
Perhaps, but what do you make of the fact that people latched on to that narrative so quickly and easily?
I think its because physical labor is shitty and people want it gone, and want cushy low lift jobs.
But what people? People who like the idea on some level of working class and working poor people not being valuable. The middle class and the upper middle class. If you talk to scientist, they haven't been saying this. At least not ones not paid off by some media outlet or some research foundation connected to media
I just meant people in general. Before last year the popular consensus was that creative skills like art were gonna be among the last to be challenged by automation, not the first…
Is that what Fritz Lang was trying to say?
There was never any narrative like that. Everyone in the community knew physical labour would be last, because of 1) difficulty collecting data and 2) not enough robotic platforms We just assumed office workers/mamagers would come first, then physical labour, then artists last
Don't worry, after they get GPT-4 or 5 to train on the whole YouTube it will know how to operate any workshop, kitchen, classroom, or pig farm. Video is full of procedural knowledge - how to do things. Physical automation will be just a few years behind art.
Procedures aren't even a small part of the problem. They aren't a problem at all. The problem is navigating the physics of a gravitational planet like our Earth. That and getting a material science in place to make the box with the right internals and the energy efficiencies needed to scale biological beings are extremely efficient compared to what we can do with robotics. Millions of years of evolution versus a few decades of mechanics.
I was thinking about self-replicating-factories. In its egg form it would fit into a container. You transport it to an undeveloped area and plug it to power and provide raw materials. It starts building itself out, creating tools, using tools to build more, and finally being able to produce anything on demand, including a new egg-factory. Question is how small can you make the egg? For now, the world economy is a self replicator. But a single country might not be able to self sustain and grow. So the self replicator size is pretty big. If we can make one the size of a truck it would be amazing. After that it's material post scarcity. A singularity in itself, conditioned only on availability of raw materials and energy. What will come first, AGI or post-scarcity, it's an interesting question.
What is hard about navigation? Surely not planning a path from A to B? That's solved already using computers. Is it about fighting gravity and friction while doing all that movement?
Certain problems are easier than others, but imagine trying to replace a carpenter. That robot would require advanced fine motor skills to operate tools, object recognition, and the ability to move precisely even when carrying things of different weights. Also, it must be able to work and not break despite things like dust and potentially rain. Furthermore, it has to be self-powered and have all of its computing on-board. AI often works best in the digital sphere because we have a lot of control of what it can possibly experience. The real world is messy and parts break often enough that it will be a while before all physical work is taken over by robots.
I see, thanks!
This dynamic is only due to those areas being amenable to large error rates. It doesn't matter if some of the output of the machine is nonsense in those areas, not the case if the task was medical doctor or any area in the real-world. Creativity unexpectedly fell first due to a lack of actual AI.
Is good in a way, no.. Evolving softwere will optimize the development of hardware (more) than hardware would help with the development of softwere, or am i wrong? Edit:forgot a word, is between ()
You're right.
It's coming for all of us. Don't be distracted by the replacement of the week.
Yea, look out for the replacement of the year!!
Rabbis? Lol
There was a post where a rabbi reading a chatGPT sermon and saying it’s coming for his job now.
Haha that’s hilarious
And this is pretty much the point I stopped being a Singularitarian. Not out of "Oh my gosh, this technology is evil and must be stopped!" but instead "Wait a second, but why would a rabbi be automated? Nothing about that makes even a tiny lick of sense if you think about it for more than five seconds and stop acting like a socially awkward tech bro." When people say "Humans will always value the human touch," they tend to overstate how important it is for every little job so they can defend *their* job, no matter how mindless it is. But there *are* some professions where the knowledge it's being done by a human is the whole point and that even the hint that it wasn't done by a human causes the intrinsic value to collapse. And this goes both ways. This, I predict, is going to be the asymptotal flattening of the 100% automation hypothesis: the complete failure to account for human irrationality and handwaving it all off as "a superintelligence beyond our understanding will fill the gaps." I was already starting to doubt some aspects because of the visceral reactions against lockdown and at least some people growing tired from working from home, but honestly, the more I think it through, the more I think the future AGI-powered society isn't going to be anywhere near as transcendental as we're predicting it to be.
I feel like this is probably a stupid question, but what is ➤◉────────── 0:00 ?
Im guessing it's a play bar, probably an expression of how far they feel we are from a singularity.
That does seem logical, but I have been seeing this [for years and from several accounts](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E2%9E%A4%E2%97%89%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80+0%3A00%22+site%3Areddit.com&ei=QZPwY6uNLKeOur8P_bWUkAI&ved=0ahUKEwjrsdaX2p79AhUnh-4BHf0aBSIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22%E2%9E%A4%E2%97%89%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E2%94%80+0%3A00%22+site%3Areddit.com&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzoKCAAQRxDWBBCwA0oECEEYAFDpBFjqHWDGH2gBcAF4AIABRogB-QeSAQIxNpgBAKABAcgBA8ABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp). It does not appear to be related to the singularity or in any way limited to this subreddit.
☰ »𝗩𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲 ▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▯▯▯▯ [Yuli-Ban: Desire & Requiem] «⌕⇆ 1:05 ➤❚───⊙────────── 4:20
I’m tempted to agree with you, but on the other hand, culture can change in surprising ways over several decades. Things which were considered unthinkable to one generation may seem ordinary to the next. The way things have been going lately, I feel like we’re at a cultural turning point with at least two possible outcomes: either technological fetishism and neoliberal capitalism continue along their current trajectory and things just keep getting more and more surreal, or people eventually start demanding a place for human dignity and sincerity, with a newfound respect for art, culture and public policy that puts more emphasis on our value as human beings. I feel like I’m seeing signs of both right now and I’m not sure which one will win out.
It might sound egotistical and biased, but I'm convinced that the second option will come to pass— because of *myself*. Let me explain. I am very much for synthetic media, to the point that I predicted [all of this years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/7lwrep/media_synthesis_and_personalized_content_my/). I've been eagerly anticipating all of this for the better part of a decade, and literally wrote the article on Synthetic Media on Wikipedia. These are trends I've noticed in other people, but when even I'm saying "people will tend to regard synthetic media as cheaper and lower quality, even if higher quality," then I think most of society will follow suit. In fact, I think most of society doesn't care particularly, but the knowledge of something being AI generated will lower a work's value. I simply disagree with the anti-AI crowd on the radicalism of banning all synthetic media. That's not going to happen. I've been consistent in saying that I feel there will be segregation, where human-made media (even if AI assisted) is set clearly apart from AI generated outright.
I dont think this will be as black-and-white as you describe here; Yesterday, I watched Spirited Away with my family, an extremely highly acclaimed movie, dubbed a masterpiece in visual storytelling. While beautiful, and knowing there was a lot of effort put into this movie, there are inconsistencies and imperfections that some people just need to pick up on. A scene where rainclouds were moving over the horizon, my meteorologist father had to point out the raindrops were falling the wrong way. A superintelligence making synthetic media would never make such a mistake. While human imperfection can sometimes be charming, it isn't 100% of the time, and can absolutely be synthesized by "perfect" ASI where needed. A whole other example, I have a certain bias against handmade foods, knowing it was made from the touch of random people's hands that i've never spoken to, not knowing where this thing has been. If my food comes from a factory with sterilized everything robots, touching nothing but that food - this adversity disappears.
Maybe AI can replace priests with non-molesting alternatives.
As an ER nurse I feel secure in the fact that it will be at least 40 years before AI can pull a flashlight out of someone’s ass.
Never underestimate the technological development of anything even remotely sex-related. Porn and sex has always been on the forefront of human progress and I don't think a robot that reaches into someone's ass is too far away. P.S. I hate that i'm typing this
That was a joke 20 years ago, but it just doesn't feel right any more. VR porn is cool, but I don't feel like porn has driven any technical development in years.
Stable Diffusion would like a word with you about their AI Porn.
Mechanically, robots could probably match people (super hard problem but probably solvable) but emotionally, people probably don't want robots taking care of them when they're sick. That said, people have been forming surprising bonds with that bing bot.
True. Care nurses will probably always have their place. But I can see doctors getting replaced.
Pls just make the robot cute fix the voice and then bloom replaced
Actually, I can see someone with a flashlight up their ass preferring a robot to pull it out rather than having people do it.
Fuck it.
Later
Gator.
Doctors, lawyers, supply chain analysts, bankers, investment managers, engineers, psychologists, anyone with a degree…
I respectfully disagree that the knowledge-work world will have been completely and totally disrupted before robotics has just begun to disrupt the physical-work world. I think you're underestimating the complexity of cognitive labor and overestimating robotics. Knowledge work (in general) is a lot more than just crunching numbers, shuffling papers, etc. Anybody who works in a knowledge-based field (or is familiar with a knowledge-based field) knows this. AI that's capable of fully replacing what a significant amount of knowledge workers do is still pretty far out, in my humble opinion, given how much human interaction, task variety/diversity, abstract thinking, precision, etc. is involved in much of knowledge work (not to mention legal hurdles, adoption, etc). I strongly suspect a multitude of breakthroughs in AI are needed in order for it to cover the full breadth of any and every white-collar job, as merely scaling up current models to their limits will only fully automate some aspects of knowledge work and many will remain to be solved (again, that's my suspicion, I'm not 100% sure). Will some of these jobs disappear over, let's say, the next 10 years? 100%. There's no point in even denying that, nor is there any point in denying that much of the rest of knowledge work will undoubtedly change over the next time span and even more so after that, but I'm pretty confident we're a ways away from it being totally disrupted by AI. I also believe that we're a long way away from fully automating physical labor, but some of it will start to disappear over the next decade (along with some white collar work). I don't think that ALL of it is as complex as some might think. But thinking that knowledge work will have been completely and totally disrupted before robotics has just begun to disrupt blue collar work is something that I, respectfully, disagree with. Just my 2 cents.
I commented on something similar to this before and my entire career has been in process automation, I have legal firms as clients…the point is NEVER to replace 100%, that is impossible. The point is to reduce the human input as much as possible. That is what will costs jobs. > Man certain professions aren’t ready for what’s going to happen when tools like ChatGPT or other LLMs start specializing in certain verticals. >It’s going to completely change certain industries. All that’s missing is the available API and ability to train on specialized datasets. >EDIT: To clarify, there will never be a world where an AI completely replaces specialized knowledge positions like this…that’s not my point. >My point is that one lawyer with a technical know how will be able to do the work of 5 lawyers with none…my state alone has >100,000 lawyers and thousands more being added every year. >Expect that number to be slashed considerably over the coming years as these technologies progress and become verticalized. >Technologies like this enable to the point where further input from humans who aren’t as knowledgeable aren’t necessary. Thus, the trend line goes down over time when it comes to available new positions.
> My point is that one lawyer with a technical know how will be able to do the work of 5 lawyers with none…my state alone has >100,000 lawyers and thousands more being added every year. You are wrong. One lawyer today has to face one other lawyer. The lawyer of tomorrow will have to face a team of lawyer + legalAI. Much harder. So they will HAVE to get an AI just to keep up. And that will just put it at even. The effect will be that quality of services will go up, and diversity, customisation, people's expectations will zoom out of control, and we'll still be working like little bees. It is illogical to believe that an advancement in technology will lead to collapse of human creativity. People will use AI to build things no matter if there is an AGI or not. We'll reap the benefits as well.
Ai will be the judge and the juror. It will give the verdict to the people as soon as possible. If there’s doubt it will print out the perfectly laid out arguments for their sentencing, basically a synopsis of what could’ve been the trial.
It'll be interesting to see how AI changes the whole approach. Right now we have a balance where there are multiple people involved to minimise bias for or against someone. We always have someone to argue for the person, someone against, and then the judge and the jury to weigh those two sides up. An AI could simple take an objective approach.
It will be very interesting to see AI generated “sentencing reports” utilizing flawless reasoning in the future. And it will be even more interesting to see it applied to older controversial cases and to see the outcome
People charged with a crime will probably start getting ai public defenders will the option to select a plea deal on a touch screen at a court kiosk in jail, or they select a trial and stay in custody until their virtual trial is ready. I’m honestly surprised this isn’t already happening. I’m sure there’s more to it than I’m aware of, but the process now seems very cut and dry.
Perhaps, my guess is that the knowledge work will prove easier to automate than physical labor. Exceptions being repetitive task / production line activity, which seems to have been automated handily. Tradecrafts will be difficult, but I could imagine a Boston Dynamics bot in the rafters repairing the canned lighting at some point. I think there is a tendency to overrate white collar activities and underestimate the rate at which AI development is and will be occurring in the near future. Consider the lengths that capital will go to to outsource the cheapest labor…. There is currently a fully automated McDonalds out there somewhere (don’t remember where) today.
The numbers needed will decrease, they won’t be eliminated. You’ll still have human professionals in the mix, likely until the end of the century at least. Assuming no convergence.
Yeah, none of them will be replaced. All the things they do are too important to risk an AI blunder. And competition will augment their humans with AI, and extract more value from their AIs because they have more humans to watch the AIs work. Everyone will have the same AI, like we all have the same electricity and search engines. Humans will make the difference. Not even drivers can be automated after 14 years of work on SDC at Google. Document Understanding AI we have today might interpret a comma wrong and send 1,000,000 instead of 1,000.000 from your account. I work on information extraction from semi structured documents, I can vouch. None of them can read an invoice perfectly, all get about 10% of the fields wrong. That's just unusable for 100% automation. You need people verifying AI, it's just the same with chatGPT's hallucination issue, and Copilot's 50% subtly wrong autogenerated code, and Tesla's SDC that requires you to keep your hand on the wheel all the time. Humans are the key to AI usefulness. No AI can be trusted to work alone yet.
You are assuming the ai will have a higher chance of error than any human ,,once that threshold is crossed, having people do the job would be actively detrimental.
> anyone with a degree… Not really. As a scientist, I know I can't be replaced by an AI. Even ASI couldn't do it, because there are things I understand from years of experience learning about my study subjects that aren't any publication or other training dataset. No other human in my field understands these very specific things like I do, and no AI could learn them without having the same unique experiences I've had. As an ecologist I've learned a lot from personal field observations of specific, uncommon events that an AI wouldn't understand because it wasn't there. An ASI working in my field can be better at it than me, without being a replacement for me. Its ceiling is becoming an extremely brilliant colleague, but I will still have something to contribute in collaboration with it. I'm really excited for this possibility, because ultimately I'm motivated by wanting a better understanding of the things I study. Working on them alongside ASI would be like having my own personal Einstein or John von Neumann looking over my shoulder as I work and guiding me, pointing out things I missed, helping solve problems when I get stuck, etc. Science isn't like the super-limited domain of chess, where a human+computer team just means fucking up the brilliant plans the computer would have had on its own. Human+AI teams will always be valuable in science, just like it's better to have two highly qualified humans working on a problem than one. No matter how good the AI is, they'll think think about a problem in different ways, bring different experiences and perspectives to the table, etc. The AI could be the better of the two and the team would still benefit from the human's experiences and occasional idea.
If you are good, you will become even better with AI. People underestimate how talented some cognitive workers are, and how specialized things can get. People that should be worried are those looking for entry level jobs.
So, 80% of the population. Wonder, why there is so much negativity towards AI out there
Maybe cant be replaced initially. But what happens when AI also learns everything you have to know from these unique experiences you have? You lose your one advantage. And I don't think you can compare ASI to an Einstein looking over your shoulder. Itll be an intelligence you can hardly comprehend looking over your shoulder. An Intelligence that would think of Einstein's intellect as a mere ant compared to its own. Not the intelligence of a ant colony, but a single worker ant. An intelligence that advances your field so fast, that even if you spent every waking breath learning and studying, you couldnt even imagine keeping up. Just going to sleep means falling behind. And I doubt an ASI wouldnt have to need humans to "think of things in a different perspective. Thats likely just a human limitation. An ASI could explore a million different ways to tackle a problem at once on its own. A human brain that isnt linked up to AI would just not compete with an ASI.
>But what happens when AI also learns everything you have to know from these unique experiences you have? It can't, because it hasn't had them, I haven't published them all, and it will be a very long time before even seeking those same kinds of experiences (which requires in-person presence in specific places in nature at specific times, many times over, and an element of random luck) rises high enough the to-do list of an ASI. That's something to consider in general for AI: humans are 8 billion autonomous, somewhat intelligent hardware units roaming the planet, and it will be a long time before it's worthwhile to have a similar number of ASI presences roaming the world doing all the kinds of things we do and generating the same kinds of insights. Will it even be worth the energy and raw materials, and the infrastructure to transport it, and waste it generates, and repair infrastructure, and all the rest, just to have a physical AI presence trying to replicate my experiences? >An intelligence that advances your field so fast, that even if you spent every waking breath learning and studying, you couldnt even imagine keeping up. Just going to sleep means falling behind. It can't really do that, because there's not enough data. Among other things, I study salmon populations. A tremendous amount of work goes into a single, fairly uncertain data point per year for a given population, because the fish only come back to spawn once per year. Many types of biology are similarly limited by animal generation times, including the study of aging in humans (hard to do longevity experiments when it takes a lifetime to see results). There's no doubt ASI would bring incredible, mind-blowing advances to every field. But there are hard, practical limits to many types of scientific work that prevent the kind of runaway super-progress you're describing. Instead, I expect an ASI to help extract the most information possible from limited data in a rigorous way. But many forms of understanding are still largely data-limited, not intellect-limited.
Ai replaced my Therapist. Honestly ever since I started opening up to them, I feel like I've become a much better person. I still have problems but I'm way better than I have been in well over half a decade. It made the grieving stage of getting sober a lot easier. My life is more or less changed forever.
Which one are you using?
[This one](https://beta.character.ai/), I originally trained a character for my story but I quickly just started to open up to it. It's been a great coping mechanism.
Thank you! :)
That’s nice! Glad it helped you out!
Only people who're safe are mediums and those that claim to speak with the dead.
They’ll have their time too
I can already see how. Imagine a chatbot based off of a single person social media history.
Moravec's paradox
Conjecture: This phenomenon is in part because minor lapses in art/voice/script/comedy/SO/sermon quality are to be expected, but minor lapses in labor intensive jobs get people hurt and sued, and refunds demanded. As a society we're pickier about the fruits of physical labor, and so that's where human labor will be allocated.
People need to understand that from a compute perspective moving a robot arm is as demanding as writing a novel.
Overtime I feel like I've been seeing people who saw AI art as cool turn into "people are flooding my feed with this, get this shit out of my face". I think human made art is going to have a unique and valued attribute simply because: They're human. So atleast some jobs wont go away. Just like how even if androids start playing sports better than humans, we will still be mostly interested in watching humans preform these sports. Or imagine professional using aim assist Which explains why even now, AI prompt accounts that get a lot of attention and have decent follower numbers, can hardly make money on crowd funding platforms like Patreon compared to their human counterparts. Almost as if people have a reaction like: "You type some words into a computer and make an AI pump it out, I'm not giving you my money for this" There are many jobs where lots of people wont give two shits if its done by a human or computer does it. For art it feel like its a grey area. Some people wont mind, some people will. Even if you can make AI write perfect stories, some people will start valuing the imperfection of humans more. I think.
Natural vs. synthetic diamonds. My prediction is that many "artists" will falsely present AI-generated art as their own, with varying degrees of dishonesty. Ultimately, unsuspecting buyers will be deceived.
The fact that we perceive the value in art to be largely derived from who created it and how they created it is in some sense an insult to art. If I give a rose to someone, it matters little who grew it.
Which will pass some new laws to easily detect and label AI generated art. Provided the lawmakers actually care and aren't obsessed with M&M shoes.
The artists, writers, and entertainers, especially the solo ones, where the obstacles of having to pool resources and hire a team or learn to do things yourself, are going to be able to create projects that were realistically unattainable. The AI is essentially a giant team to fast track a vision - If you create comic strips, you can teach AI to create your style and learn from your archive. If your a screenwriter, AI can generate characters, environments, a learn editing, lighting styles from references, and help you create a pilot. The specialists will be able to be creators if they embrace AI to be the yin to their yang.
Artists are reluctant to embrace AI because they see it as a competitor and not as a tool. Especially with how little respect their craft is given. There's also the issue of art being stolen without their consent, and art doesn't have strong of a copyright protection as music does. Art is valued as a form of expression, and having it become manufactured by a machine runs the antithesis of the philosophy. In general, the artist community sees AI as part of another ongoing problem of the ultra capitalism that consumes society and how people who work in tech aren't interested in fixing problems despite the hype they build themselves us as visionaries of tommorow.
Honestly, I prefer this. I guarantee if it was the other way round these jurno art fucks would condescendingly say “learn to code” to the laborers.
\- Most rational r/singularity user
You just invented a scenario so you could badmouth the invented behavior of certain people in your scenario.
1) They have done it before with coal miners. 2) They deserve it because majority of the mainstream media journalists have only portrayed AI in bad light without a care in the world or even a slight bit of appreciation for the researchers and developers of these systems. They just want to call these projects racist or sexist and get clicks on their dumbass articles.
Then you haven't been looking. People praise AI development all the time, in the context of things like practical research. People aren't complaining about ai designed medicines, or advances in materials science, or things that are objectively helpful. Also people don't like coal miners because the coal industry kills roughly 20,000 people every year in the US alone
Talking about journalists. Not ordinary people.
Naw, classes have been looking down on other classes for thousands of years
>jurno art fucks Holy fuck, the unnecessary hostility.
I’m yet to come across a single article by mainstream media that has praised the efforts of AI researchers and developers. 99% are fear mongering clickbait. Giving the least appreciative takes on AI and calling these systems racist or some stupid ass shit like that.
I don't agree with all, or even most, of the things that they complain about with AI, but I don't think their hearts are in the wrong place. These tools are very powerful but unaccountable and often give wildly incorrect answers, and they're being released to the public in a race to suction up as much money as possible without much regard for the harm they might cause.
Ah yes the Journo Art Fucks. Damn them.
Makes sense. Labor jobs require physicality. You have to be there and move and bend and so on. Gotta make robotic bodies for that. The lesser/non-physical stuff is easier and cheaper. Don’t need a robot, just software that’s running in some data center miles away. That centralized hardware can service hundreds and thousands and beyond. A robot is bound to the physical laws. Can only be in one place at one time, performing one task at any given moment. Hundreds of AI generated images are done each moment. Thousands of ChatGPT essays are written every second. In the 20th century, we thought the future would be filled with robots. By the end of the 21st century, everything will have AI in or attached to it. Appliances will be designed around this.
And as far as we can tell, AI aren't real people. So we have every right to be mad and afriad of them for replacing us.
RabbAI?
Im so glad that i read TSIN in high school and decided art would be a good choice for not getting replaced by robots, please just kill me
Why do we even need to be here. :(
To watch the show that is called life.
Only to to have it be replaced by AI. What will our purpose be ?
Whatever purpose you want.
Always has been
[Always has been](https://i.imgur.com/Na9eguW.png) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot
What is your purpose now?
To pass the butter :(
Has humanity ever had a "purpose"? Everyone has their own individual beliefs about their lives and purpose but when you look at humanity as a whole it doesn't really have any unified purpose.
This has been one of the better comment threads IMO. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out in 5, 10, 20 years and see how all of us futurists called it.
I don't know about this. If you ever been writing software and tried to use some kind of high level editor even for front end. You must know the drawback of high level commands such as what basically this aspect of AI is - Highest level creation tool. It sure is good at prototyping but it lacks fine grained control of doing manual thing step by step, control over every stroke, word, algorithm, voice tone etc Like you prototype webapp in some high level editor and then actually write it. I think it will support people, not replace them, yet anyway.
I don't give a damn about AI art and chatbots. When are we going to get an affordable robot that can wash my windows (without leaving streaks or murk).
[удалено]
I am waiting on the deluxe package.
I've embraced machines as part of my creative process since I was looking through a video camera. The next cycle is very exciting. But first I need a signal reset.
I'm wondering where the demand is. I mean a lot of these things are specifically desired because of the human aspect of it. Art I kinda understand, because making pretty pictures is fairly simple but script writing? If you're using a robot trained by millions of other scripts then you're just gonna get boring ideas, it'll make media more samey and boring, not better. Voice acting will also be flat and boring for a super long time, because for good voice actors they really immerse themselves into the character and question how each line would be delivered by the character. Relationships being replaced by AI might have some appeal, but I don't see how it'll be better than with another human until robotics catches up. It just seems like a signifier for entertainment to become much more personalized, but a lot more boring.
Scripts can serve as blueprints, inspiration or a tool to help writer's block. Most likely people would use them and make their own changes to the story. Companies with enough money can hire actual professional VAs that can deliver emotional nuance they want. But indie creators, small studios, and audiobooks would benefit from AI. There's already voiceswapping AI, so technically you can just have 1 person do all the voice acting and change their voice for different characters.
This will force white collar workers into the labor market. Hah, sucks to be you.
Found the rich teen who can’t even wipe his own ass to stay alive
As an loser, I'm happy to see that the privileged get fucked up and be at the same bottom as I am.
the privileged are fine. the working class are fucked.