• Jeena
    link
    fedilink
    English
    01 year ago

    I’m not sure why you think it’s not a good example. The picture itself is code (PNG, JPEG, etc.) which some AI wrote and no human at the company has checked but it gets delivered to the customer who pays for it. It’s not as good as if a human would do it, but it’s way way way cheaper so you can generate a couple of times until you get what you want. So in this domain humans already are losing jobs to AI even though AI is so bad that it is giving people extra legs, etc.

    The same thing happens with hallucinations of ChatGTP, which despite that is still preferable by customers to a human assistant who would summarize articles, etc. with much better quality but very low speed and very expensive.

    Code is not much different from summaries of longer texts.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      What human has lost their job to AI image creation?

        • Flying Squid
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          That article says artists are still needed to touch up the AI art, which was my whole point about people who understand code, so I think you just proved my point.

          • Jeena
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Ok, if your point was that instead of 90 junior programmers and 10 senior programmers before, now the 10 senior programmers will keep their job and instead of touching up the juniors code they touch up the AIs code then yes you’re right, those jobs will be kept for some more time.

            • Flying Squid
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              My point:

              Even if ChatGPT gets far in advance of the way it is now in terms of writing code, at the very least you’re still going to need people to go over the code as a redundancy.

              Note I never said anything about the number of people.

              Maybe you should read before responding.