cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/2811405
"We view this moment of hype around generative AI as dangerous. There is a pack mentality in rushing to invest in these tools, while overlooking the fact that they threaten workers and impact consumers by creating lesser quality products and allowing more erroneous outputs. For example, earlier this year America’s National Eating Disorders Association fired helpline workers and attempted to replace them with a chatbot. The bot was then shut down after its responses actively encouraged disordered eating behaviors. "
I’m five times better at my job thanks to AI. My life is better. I’m happier. I’m earning more.
So, yeah, fuck these articles. They’re clearly written by people who don’t understand it for people who can’t use it. “John replaced walking with driving a car and then he ran over a dog. Therefore cars are useless, overhyped, and bad.”
That said, the less competitors that use it, the better for me.
“These articles about cars running people over and cooking the planet are dumb because I can drive to the grocery store 10x faster than walking”
Just cause chatgpt can write some code for you doesn’t mean the bad parts aren’t true
Your point is valid, but it lacks the empathy for all the people who are displaced. In our society, displaced people are not given help to find a new place.
When a skilled worker is displaced, and can no longer find work in their skills, their choices are to spend a huge amount of money to go back to college or trade school to get new skills or be forever lost in low-income jobs.
Going from $100,000 per year to $40,000 per year overnight is devastating.
AI won’t replace jobs in that way. What it will do is make people who use it more productive, which will mean fewer people needed to do the work, which means fewer people doing that job. The speed at which it does this is what will determine the impact on how people are affected by it.
Like OP I find AI to be incredibly useful in my job. I was able to learn Ansible in less than a week by asking it how to do things and trying the result. It saves me time by doing grunt work for me that would otherwise be too fiddly or cumbersome to figure out.
We’re not going to wake up one day and have AI lawyers/programmers/writers, with all the humans on the dole. What will happen is people who can effectively utilize AI will have an advantage over those who don’t, just like people who can use a computer have an advantage over those who don’t.
But we also need worker owned cooperatives and a universal standard of living or it’s just going to make technofuedalism worse.
The trick is not to say it outloud, otherwise you set a standard for others in the eyes of bosses and they’d think it should be paid less for the same amount of work. Those who can’t adapt become less valued and you don’t benefit that much from that either. When it’s all about wage, it’s better to free your time to work on your own projects or work half-time on remote before your higher ups know, or even some colleagues of a snitchy variety. That’s what the lack of unions does.
Fortunately, I’m a sole practising lawyer. So the results speak for themselves. Nobody cares how you crafted 100 pages of written argument. The court is only concerned whether it’s persuasive and accurately represents the applicable legal principles. It’s hard work to make sure gpt-4 isn’t confused, but that’s a skill one develops over time.
That’s a good case, right, including their formulated nature and distinct language.