There is a machine learning bubble, but the technology is here to stay. Once the bubble pops, the world will be changed by machine learning. But it will probably be crappier, not better.
What will happen to AI is boring old capitalism. Its staying power will come in the form of replacing competent, expensive humans with crappy, cheap robots.
AI is defined by aggressive capitalism. The hype bubble has been engineered by investors and capitalists dumping money into it, and the returns they expect on that investment are going to come out of your pocket. The singularity is not coming, but the most realistic promises of AI are going to make the world worse. The AI revolution is here, and I don’t really like it.
You could have said the same for factories in the 18th century. But instead of the reactionary sentiment to just reject the new, we should be pushing for ways to have it work for everyone.
I don’t see how rejecting 18th century-style factories or exploitative neural networks is a bad thing. We should have the option of saying “no” to the ideas of capitalists looking for a quick buck. There was an insightful blog post that I can’t find right now…
Lets not forget all the exploitation that happened in that period also. People, even children, working for endless hours for nearly no pay, losing limbs to machinery and simply getting discarded for it. Just as there is a history of technology, there is a history of it being used inequitably and even sociopathically, through greed that has no consideration for human well-being. It took a lot of fighting, often literally, to get to the point we have some dignity, and even that is being eroded.
I get your point, it’s not the tech, it’s the system, and while I lost all excitement for AI I don’t think that genie can’t be put back in the bottle. But if the whole system isn’t changing, we should at least regulate the tech.
But AI will eliminate so many jobs that it will affect a lot of people, and strain the whole system even more. There isn’t a “just become a programmer” solution to AI, because even intellectually-oriented jobs are now on the line for elimination. This won’t create more jobs than it takes away.
Which shows why people are so fearful of this tech. Freeing people from manual labor to go to intellectual work was overall good, though in retrospect even then it came at a cost of passionate artisans. But now people might be “freed” from being artists to having to become sweatshop workers, who can’t outperform machines so their only option is to undercut them. Who is being helped by this?
Yes, I know about the exploitation that happened during early industrialization, and it was horrible. But if people had just rejected and banned factories back then, we’d still be living in feudalism.
I know that I don’t want to work a job that can be easily automated, but intentionally isn’t just so I can “have a purpose”.
What will happen if AI were to automate all jobs? In the most extreme case, where literally everyone lost their job, then nobody would be able to buy stuff, but also, no company would be able to sell products and make profit. Then, either capitalism would collapse - or more likely, it will adapt by implementing some mechanism such as UBI. Of course, the real effect of AI will not be quite that extreme, but it may well destabilize things.
That said, if you want to change the system, it’s exactly in periods of instability that can be done. So I’m not going to try to stop progress and cling to the status quo out of fear what those changes might be - and instead join a movement that tries to shape them.
we should at least regulate the tech.
Maybe. But generally on Lemmy I see sooo many articles about “Oh, no, AI bad”. But no good suggestions on what exactly regulations should we want.
Movements that shape changes can also happen by resisting or by popular pressure. There is no lack of well-reasoned articles about the issues with AI and how they should be addressed, or even how they should have been addressed before AI engineers charged ahead not even asking for forgiveness after also not asking for permission. The thing is that AI proponents and the companies embracing them don’t care to listen, and governments are infamously slow to act.
For all that is said of “progress”, a word with a misleading connotation, once again this technology puts wealthy people, who can build data centers for it, at an advantage compared to regular people who at best can only use lesser versions of it, if even that, they might instead just receive the end result of whatever the technology owners want to offer. Like the article itself mentions, it has immense potential for advertising, scams and political propaganda. I haven’t seen AI proponents offering meaningful rebuttals to that.
At this point I’m bracing for the dystopian horrors that will come before it all comes to a head, and who knows how it might turn out this time around.
Like the article itself mentions, it has immense potential for advertising, scams and political propaganda. I haven’t seen AI proponents offering meaningful rebuttals to that.
You won’t get a direct rebuttal because, obviously, an AI can be used to write ads, scams and political propaganda.
But every day millions of people are cut by knives. It hurts. A lot. Sometimes the injuries are fatal. Does that mean knives are evil and ruining the world? I’d argue not. I love my kitchen knives and couldn’t imagine doing without them.
I’d also argue LLMs can be used fact check and uncover scams/political propaganda/etc and can lower the cost of content production to the point where you don’t need awful advertisements to cover the production costs.
This knife argument is overused as an excuse to take no precautions about anything whatsoever. The tech industry could stand to be more responsible about what it makes rather than shrugging it off until aging politicians realize this needs to be adressed.
Using LLMs to fact check is a flawed proposition, because ultimately what it provides are language patterns, not verified information. Nevermind its many examples of mistakes, it’s very easy for them to provide incorrect answers that are widely repeated misconceptions. You may not blame the LLM for that, you can scratch that to generalized ignorance, but it still ends up falling short for this use case.
But as much as I dislike ads, that last one is part of the problem. Humans losing their livelihood. So, going back to a previous point, how does the lowered ad budget help anyone but executives and investors? The former ad workers get freed to do what? Because the ones focused on art or writing would only have a harder time making a career out of that now.
Accelerationists?
You could have said the same for factories in the 18th century.
Everyone who died as a result of their introduction probably would say the same, yes. If corpses could speak, anyway.
Well if you can find anyone who’s died because an AI wrote an article then I’ll concede you have a point.
Did you read the whole article including the “flame bait”? The author gives an example there of someone committing suicide because an AI encouraged them…
Is that the AI’s fault, or the depressed and suicidal human’s fault?
Do you not think that the person would have committed suicide whether they asked the AI or not? The AI might have sped up the decision, but it is the human who made it.
It is not like the AI is out there trying to convince non-depressed humans to become depressed in order they go kill themselves …
If the technology actually existed to replace human workers, the human workers could chip in and buy the means of production and replace the company owners as well.
If the humans are replaced, how will they afford to buy what the company owners aren’t selling?
deleted by creator
Top quality luddite opinions right here. Plenty of fear and oprobium being directed against the technology, while taking the kleprocratic capitalism and kakistocracy as a given that can’t be challenged.
That seems to be the theme of the era.
Yes, it is incompatible with the status quo. That’s a good thing. The status quo is unsustainable. The status quo is on course to kill us all.
The only real danger AI brings is it will let our current corrupt leaders and corrupt institutions be more efficient in their corruption. The problem there is not the AI; it’s the corruption.
Improving human efficiency is essentially the purpose of technology after all. Any new invention will generally have this effect.
deleted by creator
What? It’s the sociological definition of technology. A cultural tool which is used by a community for making a task xyz, easier, faster, more efficient.
Efficiency is an extremely broad term.
What’s your counter definition of technology and efficiency that is leading you to disagree?
The fact that AI evangelists have the gall to call everyone who disagrees with them “luddites” is absolutely astounding to me. It’s a word I see people like you throw around over and over again.
And before you heap the same nonsense on me, I use AI and have for years. But the entire discourse by “advocates” is quarter-baked, pretentious, and almost religious. It’s bizarre. These are just tools, and people calling for us to think about how we use these tools as more and more ethical issues arise are not “luddites.” They are not halting progress. They are asking reasonable questions about what we want to unleash on ourselves. Meanwhile nothing is stopping you or I from using LLM’s and running our own local instance of ChatGPT-like systems. Or whatever else we can come up with. So what is the problem?
Imagine if we had taken an extra five minutes before embracing Facebook and all the other social media that came to define “Web2.0.” Maybe things could be slightly better. Maybe we wouldn’t have as big of a radicalization/silo-ing issue. But we don’t know, because anyone who dares to even ask “should we do this?” in the tech world is treated like they need to be sent to a retirement home for their own safety. It’s anathema, it’s heresy.
So once again: What is the problem? What are those people doing to you? Why are they so threatening? Why are you so angry and insulting them?
I feel like we are just entering the new iteration of crypto bro culture. 
Extra spicy take: The Luddites were right. They were really always about opposing unethical use of technology, people who use their name as an insult were always all about “progress over people”, and you should never feel bad for being called a Luddite.
I dig it. Take it back
Why are they so threatening?
Simple example: A lot of artists would like that their images aren’t used for AI training and would like to have legislation to prevent that. Problem with that is that such legislation would grand a monopoly on AI to the Google’s, Facebook’s and Adobe’s of this world, as they are already sitting on mountains of data and have ToS that allows them to use it for training. Any Open Source project that doesn’t have the data and would need to web scraping would be illegal.
That’s the issue. A lot of criticism on AI is extremely short sighted and ignorant, often not even understanding the very basics how it all works.
Another more fundamental problem: What are you going to do? AI is just a collection of algorithms and math. Do you want to outlaw math? Force humans to use less efficient tools? Technological progress is not something you can easily control, especially not in advance when you don’t even know what changes it will bring.
Imagine if we had taken an extra five minutes before embracing Facebook and all the other social media that came to define “Web2.0.”
We did and nothing ever came of it. Projects like https://freenet.org/ or https://freedombox.org/ have been around for a decade or two. But the masses want convinience.
Then how about you push for decent legislation and policy as opposed to throwing your hands up and saying “Jesus take the wheel” when it comes to unfettered AI tools hoovering up all of our data and poorly regurgitating our shit without our permission to replace us at our jobs?
You act like this is all grounded in reality and say we are spreading FUD yet here you are just giving an example of handing it all over and creating monopolies, which is just speculation and FUD in the other direction.
Yes, a lot of critiques are ignorant. That does not mean everyone’s critique is ignorant. It does not even mean most critiques are ignorant. Too many of you are just far too defensive and won’t even have a discussion. It’s absolutely ridiculous to hold such a myopic viewpoint over something so complex and potentially seismic for our society. Either you’re a genius tech bro who knows AI will save us, or you’re a drooling luddite spreading FUD.
we are spreading FUD
You are spreading FUD right in this post: “poorly regurgitating our shit without our permission”
- There is no need for permission, that’s not how copyright works
- It’s not “poorly regurgitating”, it’s for most part original and of high quality
You wanna be taken serious? Stop repeating the nonsense as everybody else.
And as for “replace us at our jobs”, that’s not a problem, that’s called progress. If you want UBI or something along the line, go fight for that, don’t make stupid arguments against AI.
That does not mean everyone’s critique is ignorant.
Well, maybe, still waiting for reading one that isn’t. Since everybody just keeps repeating the same nonsense, including you right now.
The only sensible one I heard so far was from Hinton, which simply suggested putting about equal money into AI safety research as we do into AI research. Nothing wrong with that, though that will probably just show us more ways in which AI can go wrong and less on how to prevent it.
Oh yeah, I forgot copyright law was this static and beautiful thing that never gets reassessed or re-contextualized. Laws given from God that are never to be augmented or changed in any way. Especially not when something as new as AI enters the scene and crawls all content online.
If your defense is “it’s the law,“ then you don’t actually have an argument and for some reason have forgotten that this is not just a legal discussion, but an ethics one. Hanging your hat on “laws exist” as if they can’t and aren’t regularly changed is also bizarre. 
Once again, AI evangelists are adhering to a faith. Everything you’ve said has been vacuous, hand waving statements to make everyone else appear ignorant and behind the times. You have said nothing of substance this entire conversation, and I’m not going to continue having this discussion with somebody who operates like that. Have a good rest of your week, truly. But I am done. Feel free to have the last word.
Oh yeah, I forgot copyright law was this static and beautiful thing that never gets reassessed or re-contextualized.
So you want it changed in such a way that it grands Google, Adobe and Co. exclusive ownership over powerful AI models and kills all Open Source efforts? Congratulations for proving my point.
And you wonder why nobody takes you people seriously…
What are those people doing to you?
There are definitely people who are harmed by FUD like this. For example the current writers strike, which has 11,000 people putting down tools… indefinitely shutting down global movie productions that employ millions of people and leaving them unemployed for who knows how long.
I stand with my colleagues in the WGA/SAG-AFTRA. Their support for the strike is near unanimous. As is SAG-AFTRA’s (97.91%). Do not speak on things you don’t understand, and definitely don’t leverage the collective action of those of us in the film industry against our own interests to make some oblique argument about AI.
I don’t have anything against you or your colleagues. You’ve got every right to strike if that’s what you want to do.
But there are millions of people being harmed by the strike. That’s a simple fact.
Journalists/etc need to do their job and provide good balanced information on critical issues like this one. FUD like Drew Devalt posted inflames the debate and makes it nearly impossible for reasonable people to figure out what to do about Large Language Models… because like it or not, they exist, and they’re not going away.
PS: while I’m not a film writer, I am paid to spend my day typing creative works and my industry is also facing upheaval. I also have friends who work in the film industry, so I’m very aware and sympathetic to the issues.
Unrestricted AI usage without creative attribution and runaway studio power is harming them. The strike is a result of that. The strike isn’t happening because they’re luddites about AI. They know exactly what it’s capable of. Your argument isn’t grounded in reality and is just you piling assumption on top of assumption.
You aren’t dumb, clearly, yet you are acting ignorant of the issue and being so reductionist it’s borderline dishonest. Especially if you are familiar with the industry and its stated woes.
But there’s also real danger here today.
For example, ‘Life or Death:’ AI-Generated Mushroom Foraging Books Are All Over Amazon
These are easily avoidable problems. There are always reputable authors on topics and why would a self published foraging book by some random person be better than an AI one? You buy books written by experts, especially when it’s about life or death.
I think the idea is that someone buying a basic book on foraging mushrooms isn’t going to know who the experts are.
They’re going to google it, and they’re going to find AI-generated reviews (with affiliate links!) of AI-generated foraging books.
Now, if said AI is generating foraging books more accurate than humans, that’s fine by me. Until that’s the case, we should be marking AI-generated books in some clear way.
Now, if said AI is generating foraging books more accurate than humans, that’s fine by me. Until that’s the case, we should be marking AI-generated books in some clear way.
The problem is, the LLM AIs we have today literally cannot do this because they are not thinking machines. These AIs are beefed-up autocompletes without any actual knowledge of the underlying information being conveyed. The sentences are grammatically correct and read (mostly) like we would expect human written words to read, however the actual factual content is non-existent. The appearance of correctness just comes from the fact that the model was trained on information that was (probably mostly) correct in the first place.
I mean, we should still be calling these things algorithms and not “AI” as “AI” carries a lot of subtext in people’s minds. Most people understand “algorithms” to mean math, and that dehumanizes it. If you call something AI, all of a sudden people have sci-fi ideas of truly independent thinking machines. ChatGPT is not that, at all.
“Easily avoidable” if you know to look for them or if they’re labelled appropriately. This was just an example of a danger that autocomplete AI is creating today. Unscrupulous people will continue to shit out AI generated nonsense to try to sell when the seller does zero vetting of the products in their store (one of the many reasons I no longer shop at Amazon).
Many people, especially beginners, are not going to take the time to fully investigate their sources of knowledge, and to be honest they probably shouldn’t have to. If you get a book about mushrooms from the library, you can probably assume it’s giving valid information as the library has people to vet books. People will see Amazon as being responsible for keeping them safe, for better or worse.
I agree that generally there is a bunch of nonsense about ChatGPT and LLM AIs that isn’t really valid, and we’re seeing some amount of AI bubble happening where it’s a self feeding thing. In the end it will shake out, but before that all happens you have some outright dangerous and harmful things occurring today.
taking the kleprocratic capitalism and kakistocracy as a given that can’t be challenged.
It’s literally baked into the models themselves. AI will reinforce kleptocratic capitalism and kakistocracy as you so aptly put it because the very data it’s trained on is a slice of the society it resembles. People on the internet share bad, racist opinions and the bots trained on this data do the same. When AI models are put in charge of systems because it’s cheaper than putting humans in place, the systems themselves become entrenched in status-quo. The problem isn’t so much the technology itself, but how the technology is being rolled out, driven by capitalistic incentives, and the consequences that brings.
snicker drewdevault is an avid critic of capitalism. thats entirely the point of this post actually.
Thank you for educating me twice: Kleptocracy and kakistocracy. Now I can refer to my government with astute Greek terminology!
I disagree. If we replace this writer with ChatGPT4, it would generate a more balanced article.
More balanced articles are not necessarily better though. I’d dather read two conflicting opinions that are well thought out than a mild compromise with unknown bias.
I’d dather read two conflicting opinions that are well thought out
That’s where it all falls down of course. Because these opinions are anything but well thought out.
Why would ChatGPT be more “balanced,” what does “balanced” mean, and why is it better?
More balanced than what?
ChatGPT ingest lots of articles from the web and newspapers, identify patterns in the text, and generate relevant reply based on what it ingested.
I expect ChatGPT to perpetuate biases found in its training data, and don’t see how it’d improve balance.
What I mean is that the article was full of negative bias.
ChatGPT 4, when used with care, can take into account different opinions, both positive and negative.
I’m getting so so tired of these “AI/ML bad, world is doom” articles being posted multiple times a day. who is funding these narratives??
you have no idea who drew devault is clearly and you entirely missed the point of what he posted.
I also have no idea who he is and I also missed the point. It’s just another “AI bad” article, even if the message this time is “AI bad, but not as bad as you think.”
And its a hot topic so there are a lot of articles about it since it generates traffic. And the bigger and doomier the article, the more hype.
But lots of people are unhappy about AI, its not a narrative being funded by a secret cabal or something.
Its staying power will come in the form of replacing competent, expensive humans with crappy, cheap robots.
Unlikely to replace the “most” competent humans, but probably the lower 80% (Pareto principle), where “crappy” is “good enough”.
What’s really troubling, is that it will happen all across the board; I’m yet to find a single field where most tasks couldn’t be replaced by an AI. Used to think 3D design would take the longest, but no, there are already 3D design AIs.
I’m yet to find a single field where most tasks couldn’t be replaced by an AI
Critical-application development. For example, developing a program that drives a rocket or an airplane.
You can have an AI write some code. But good luck proving that the code meets all the safety criteria.
You just said the same thing the comment responding to did, though. He pointed out that AI can replace the lower 80%, and you said the AI can write some code but that it might have trouble doing the expert work of proving the code meets the safety criteria. That’s where the 20% comes in.
Also, it becomes easier to recognize the possibility for AI contribution when you widen your view to consider all the work required for critical application development beyond just the particular task of writing code. The company surrounding that task has a lot of non-coding work that gets done that is also amenable to AI replacement.
That split won’t work cause the top 20% would not like to do their day job clean up AI codes. It’s much better time investment wise for them to write their own template generation tool so the 80% can write the key part of their task, than taking AI templates that may or may not be wrong and then hunting all over the place to remove bugs.
Use the AI to fix the bugs.
A couple months ago, I tried it on ChatGPT: I had never ever written or seen a single line in COBOL… so I asked ChatGPT to write me a program to print the first 10 elements of the Fibonacci series. I copy+pasted it into a COBOL web emulator… and it failed, with some errors. Copy+pasted the errors back to ChatGPT, asked it to fix them, and at the second or third iteration, the program was working as intended.
If an AI were to run with enough context to keep all the requirements for a module, then iterate with input from a test suite, all one would need to write would be the requirements. Use the AI to also write the tests for each requirement, maybe make a library of them, and the core development loop could be reduced to ticking boxes for the requirements you wanted for each module… but maybe an AI could do that too?
Weird times are coming. 😐
I’m a professional programmer and this is how I use ChatGPT. Instead of asking it “give me a script to do big complicated task” and then laughing at it when it fails, I tell it “give me a script to do .” Then when I confirm that works, I say "okay, now add a function that takes the output of the first function and does " Repeat until done, correcting it when it makes mistakes. You still need to know how to spot problems but it’s way faster than writing it myself, even if I don’t have to go rummaging through API documentation and whatnot.
I mean that is exactly what programming is except you type to an AI and have it type the script. What is that good for?
Could have just typed the script in the first place.
It ChatGPT can use the API it can’t be too complex otherwise you are in for a surprise once you find out what ChatGPT didn’t care about (caching, usage limits, pricing, usage contracts)
Could have just typed the script in the first place.
Sure - but ChatGPT can type faster than me. And for simple tasks, CoPilot is even faster.
Also - it doesn’t just speed up typing, it also speeds up basics like “what did bob name that function?”
it’s way faster than writing it myself
I already explained.
I could write the scripts myself, sure. But can I write the scripts in a matter of minutes? Even with a bit of debugging time thrown in, and the time it takes to describe the problem to ChatGPT, it’s not even close. And those descriptions of the problem make for good documentation to boot.
Fashion designers are being replaced by AI.
Investment capitalists are starting to argue that C-Suite company officers are costing companies too much money.
Our Ouroboros economy hungers.C-Suites can get replaced by AIs… controlled by a crypto DAO replacing the board. And now that we’re at it, replace all workers by AIs, and investors by AI trading bots.
Why have any humans, when you can put in some initial capital, and have the bot invert in a DAO that controls a full-AI company. Bonus points if all the clients are also AIs.
The future is going to be weird AF. 😆😰🙈
If the AI is doing a better job at each of those things, why not let it?
That’s where we need to ask how we define “better”. Is better “when the number goes bigger” or is better “when more people benefit”? If an AI can better optimize to better extract the maximum value from people’s work and discard them, then optimize how many ways they can monetize their product to maximize the profit they get from each customer, the result is a horrible company and a horrible society.
In theory yes… but what do we call “doing a better job”? Is it just blindly extracting money? Or is it something more, and do we all agree on what it is? I think there could be a compounded problem of oversight.
Like, right now an employee pays/invests some money into a retirement fund, whose managers invest into several mutual funds, whose managers invest into several companies, whose owners ask for some performance from their C-suite, who through a chain of command tell the same employee what to do. Even though it’s part of the employee’s capital that’s controlling that company, if it takes an action negative for the employee like fracking under their home, or firing them, they’re powerless to do anything about it with their investment.
With AI replacing all those steps, it would all happen much quicker, and —since AIs are still basically a black box— with even less transparency than having corruptible humans on the same steps (at least we kind of know what tends to corrupt humans). Adding strict “code as contract” rules to try to keep them in check, would on a first sight look like an improvement, but in practice any unpredicted behavior could spread blindingly fast over the whole ecosystem, with nobody having a “stop” button anymore. That’s even before considering coding errors and malicious actors.
I guess a possible solution would be requiring every AI to have an external stop trigger, that a judicial system could launch to… possibly paralyze the whole economy. But that would require new legislation to be passed (with AI lawyers), and it would likely get late, and not be fully implemented by those trying to outsmart the system. Replace the judges by AIs too, politicians with AIs, talking heads on TV with AIs… and it becomes an AI world where humans have little to nothing to say. Are humans even of any use, in such a world?
None of those AIs need to be an AGI, so we could run ourselves into a corner with nobody and nothing having a global plan or oversight. Kind of like right now, but worse for the people.
Alternatively, all those AIs could be eco-friendly humans-first compassionate black boxes… but I kind of doubt those are the kind of AIs that current businesses are trying to build.
Thing is nobody will do that because once AI finds a way to spazz out that is totally unpredictable (black box) everything might just be gone.
It’s a totally unrealistic scenario.
People are already doing it, piece by piece, in all areas. As more AIs get input from other AIs, the chance of a cascading failure increases… but it will seem to be working “good enough” up until then, so more people will keep jumping on the bandwagon.
The question is: can we prepare for the eventual cascading spazz out, or have we no option other than letting it catch us by surprise?
They are working on mitigating the unpredictable “black box”.
Like making the AI explain their working method step by step. Not only does it make the AI more transparent, it also increases the correctness of whatever it types.
AI is still in development. It is good to list the problems you have, but don’t think those problems won’t be solved in the future.
Unfortunately everything AI does is kind of shitty. Sure you might have a query for which the chosen AI works well but you might as well not.
It you accept that it sometimes just doesn’t work at all sure AI is your revolution. Unfortunately there are not too many use cases where this is helpful.
I posit that in 80% of the cases, an AI working well even less than 50% of the times, is still “good enough” to achieve the shittier 80% of goals.
“I’ll have a burger with extra ketchup”… you get extra mayo instead… for half the price; “good enough”.
Sure, it’s all about capitalism. Nothing good like this could ever come from advances in technology:
ML is a tool and like most tools it has broad use cases. Some of them are very, very, good.
There is a name for this debating technique where you go “sure, there was nothing good about Hitler - except he cared about dogs!”. Can’t remember. Is it strawman?
I think we all understand that capitalism is mostly bad for humans, and really good for corporations and their owners. AI and robots will be exploited to replace people since they are massively more powerful and much cheaper.
A few things will be better I guess, but most will be worse. People already are not actually needed to work this much anymore, and as soon as they can be replaced with something cheaper and more efficient they will. That is capitalism.
Who buys the stuff if everyone is replaced?
Humans are consumers, they will buy stuff. But most won’t work for corporations anymore since robots and AI are far more effective at most jobs.
Humans will still buy the stuff robots produce. Maybe the money will come from governments as some kind of citizen coins, distributed differently based on some criteria. Not sure.
That would be UBI and that’s seen as an improvement by a lot of people so why stand in the way of that? Robots do the work, people get a budget they can spend on that work while they don’t have to do it.
Eventually nobody.
Capitalism isn’t about sustainability, it’s about making the most amount of profit in the shortest amount of time.
Eventuall you bleed everyone dry and nobody has a job. But for a short amount of time the shareholders will have had a huge number of 0’s and 1’s in a database somewhere equating to their “worth”
This is a very one sided way to look at things. Yes, people will use AI to generate spam and stuff. What it is missing is that people will also use AI to filter it all away. The nice thing about ChatGPT and friends is that it gives me access to information in whatever format I desire. I don’t have to visit dozens of websites to find what I am looking for, the AI will do that for me and report back with what it has found.
Simply put, AI is a possible path to the Semantic Web, which previously failed since ads and SoC were the driver of the Web, not information.
Sometimes I really wonder in what magical wonderland those people complaining about AI live, since as far as I am concerned, the Web and a lot of other stuff went to shit a long while ago, long before AI got any mass traction. AI is our best hope to drag ourselves out of the mud.
The real problem is that AI isn’t good enough yet. It can handle Wikipedia-like questions quite well. But try to use it for product and price information and all you get is garbage.
This is my worry as well
