I wanted robots to do my menial unpleasant chores for me so I’d have more time to do art, writing, and analytics. I didn’t want robots to do all the art, writing, and analytics so I had more time for chores & menial tasks 😭
AI bad
Yes, yes it is.
Not sure if I’d agree here. I think that used properly, AI definitely has great use-cases, especially in areas of science, like medicine.
As with any new “invention”, there is the tech-bros that jump at it first chance they get and try to push it into anything. We had that with blockchain, we had that with crypto, we had it with web3 and now we have it with AI.
The tech isn’t bad at all, it’s actually extremely useful, but the use-cases it’s put to work at aren’t.
Blockchain, crypto and web3 are all the same thing. You’re right tho, tech bros hype any new tech they think they can sell for more than it’s worth
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Luddite
Can you please stop misusing words?
Can you please read a dictionary?
I have checked one before making the comment
Could you please give me your definition of the word?
Check again. I heard that reading out loud, word by word also helps some people.
There are multiple dictionaries with different definitions. Could you please give me your definition?
The luddites were unironically entirely correct and capitalist disenfranchisement of capital has made the world objectively worse despite the wealth it brought to 0.001% of the population.
Eh. It’s more like popular history remembers the bullet points of their ideals and not the reality.
What’s stupid is thinking LLMs are AI.
Its cute you have your own call out forum for people that disagree with your neoliberal generic beliefs and all; one that only you post to or really participate in bar a few lost /all viewers, but that’s not an argument.
People being upset that their livelihoods are being destroyed while their previous bosses become immeasurably richer while doing even less work were objectively on the right side of history given where it has lead us-- with the greatest wealth disparity in all of known human history, and the most people food and shelter insecure in all of human history.
Automation and job replacement is a good thing. The reason it feels bad is because we’ve tied the ability to satisfy our basic needs to employment. In an economic model that actually isn’t a dystopian hellscape, robots replacing jobs is something to celebrate.
And to switch our economic model to one in which a person can thrive without pissing the vast majority of our lives away on the grind; we just need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps!
This is so important.
An aspect of post scarcity is that people shouldn’t have to work. AGI might allow that; LLM is starting to fill some niches.
The problem is how it’s being done. Rather than benefiting society as a whole, it’s enriching a few. In an ideal world, people whose jobs are replaced should get a stipend. We should all be eagerly awaiting that time when our jobs are replaced and we get a paycheck - maybe a little reduced - but now we’re free to pursue our interests. If that means doing your old job, only now it’s bespoke, artisan work, great.
The other missing factors are free energy and limitless resources; but we’re making progress on energy, but resources are an issue with no solution on the horizon. Plus, we’re killing the planet by just existing, so there’s that.
We have a lot of problems to solve but AI is part of the solution, except that it’s being done wrong. And expensively.
but resources are an issue with no solution on the horizon.
We’ve got tons of resources, and the means the produce more. The problem is that’s not going to make some people lots and lots of money, so they don’t do it.
Scarcity is not a problem of “can’t” right now, it’s a problem of “won’t”.
We’re going to run out of oil in the next 30 years, and it’s not just cars that will affect. The mass produced factory farmed food that feeds 90% of the world’s population is utterly dependent on fossils fuels. There are almost no “Tesla” giant combines. And the trains that transport food to the cities run on fossil fuels. Cities will collapse. Air transport and ocean shipping will cease, destroying the global economy.
Many of the remaining oil reserves are in deep water, which are each and every one a man made environmental catastrophe waiting to happen, and as the easy reserves dry up, offshore drilling will become more common.
Meanwhile, we’re running out of precious metals needed to make cheap consumer electronics. And while we’re finding new reserves and the finite limit may not be a close, as computers and phone components become more expensive, and only the well-off will be able to afford them. The income disparity we see within our countries will become global, with entire countries falling behind.
And then there’s fresh water. This will become a bigger problem as time goes on, and water wars will become large scale events.
We’re living on a finite planet of finite resources. Our only hope for space exploration is a couple of commercial companies run by the 21st century equivalent of robber barons. If we do start mining asteroids for materials, those resources still be utterly monopolized by a single handful of individuals.
I don’t understand your belief that we still have plenty of resources, when the scientific community has been warning that we’re running through our reserves ever faster, for years.
We’re going to run out of oil in the next 30 years
- everyone since 1900
No. 20 years ago it was “50 years,” so we’re pretty on track.
More reserves are accessible to us now with modern technology, but it’s being harder, more expensive, and more dangerous to get at. We’re stretching it some, but… do you imagine there’s infinite crude oil in the planet?
Right you got me thinking so here’s my thoughts. Not looking to argue just discuss the points you’ve made.
1st paragraph:
Global economy crashing is a good thing. Like you have pointed out it is completely dependent on a non-renewable resource on top of that it is one of the biggest contributors to worldwide exploitation. It also a contributes to cultural colonialism.
more info: youtube.com/watch?v=4UJSf_oyVAo.When it comes to farming. People will come up with solutions. I believe that farmers are competent enough that when we run out of oil they aren’t just going to go. “welp guess I starve now”. They are going to innovate and do what they can to keep going. Also swapping out an ICE motor for an electric one doesn’t seem that complicated.
Also Interesting that you didn’t mention plastics. The most used oil product in the world. I’ll be so glad when they’re finally gone.
2nd paragraph is just a continuation of the first.
3rd paragraph
The key word in this paragraph is make. We don’t really need to make any more electronics. We’ve already made enough. How many processors do you think are just sitting in some warehouse never to be used because a newer model came out. How much of those precious metals are inside cars that are going to be useless once oil runs out. We need to focus on recycling and reusing existing things and devices instead of making new ones.
4th paragraph
Water is a cycle. It doesn’t just disappear. We already recycle most of our water. Although I’m not that knowledgable on the topic so I can’t say much about it.
5th paragraph
skip.
6th paragraph
The scientific community has made those assertions with the assumption that we are going to keep doing what we’re doing. Mindless consumerism, buying and making new things, and abusing our planet. And they are right. What I and the commenter you’re replying to are (probably) saying is that the problems with resources are caused my how we live our lives and the problem disappears without capitalism, consumerism and the constant resource abuse they create. A more sustainable shift in society and economics will solve these problems
Also
I sidestepped you’re points about money, because I am an anarchist. I see capitalism and money as the precise reason for this artificial scarcity and natural abuse. Like you even said in you’re comment even if we get infinite resources in the form of asteroid mining it still won’t be distributed properly due to monopolies. Having more resources won’t fix anything because the problem is the market that distributes them being inefficient due to running entirely on profit motive. The solution is to end capitalism and when we do we are going to find that we have more than enough without needing to do asteroid mining. Where would we even get the fuel? doesn’t that require oil?
Okay, but @Zorque stated that “we have plenty of resources,” and that’s what I was disagreeing with. If your belief is that we need a global famine, more wars, and the collapse of civilization - and that, somehow, if we recreate civilization without access to the easy resources because we already used all those up the first time, we’ll do it better next time… we’ll agree to disagree.
I don’t want global famine and more wars but people seem insistent on creating them so I’m not going to pretend like I can stop them, I’m also not going to pretend like they (the people in power and those who allow them to remain there) somehow aren’t responsible. As for the collapse of Civilization: here’s another video youtube.com/watch?v=k0_w87J9Dj0. If you don’t want to watch. I’ll just ask you one of the main questions of the video: “what is the meaning of civilisation?”. Who does it benefit and why do we need it?
I don’t want people to suffer. Right now they are. This civilisation is making them suffer. If we could get rid of the poison of archy that plagues this civilisation without destroying it I would be grateful. But the lack of resources is not an issue. It’s a symptom of mindless consumerism and rampant capitalism. If capitalism goes, so does the scarcity.
My belief is that every person is good, kind-hearted and capable of incredible things. My belief is that greed, cruelty, and everything else that is turning this planet into hell is the fault of the systems we are raised in, the motivations we are given, and how we are treated. If this civilisation ends I won’t care. The cruelty it so efficiently creates has made sure of that. But I’m also don’t actively wish for it because I know it’ll still cause a lot of pain. The only world I’m willing to fight for is one where the power structures that allow idiots to destroy the world don’t exist.
Also I think civilisation is a lot stronger than people think. Humans are incredibly strong and capable beings. It’s going to take more than the collapse of capitalism (currently synonymous with economy) to destroy civilisation, but then again nukes exist. oh well whatever happens, happens. Not like we had any hope of seeing 2040 anyway.
Global economy crashing is a good thing.
Takes like this are why I think it should be illegal for anyone under the age of 25 to express any opinions about anything whatsoever
I can get everything I need to comfortably live from a 20km radius, or I could If my country hadn’t outsourced clothes production to china. why does my life need to rely on a regime that’s half the planet away while destroying the said planet in the process?
The fucking gall to post that on whatever device you are currently using to access the internet.
Again, those things are a matter of “won’t” rather than “can’t”. It costs “too much” to find alternatives, so companies don’t. Funding for alternate resources simply don’t exist at the level that’s necessary because it doesn’t make anyone lots and lots of money.
Those scientists are warning that we should start looking for alternatives, not that we should give up because it’s simply not possible to find an alternative.
I understand that you don’t want to look further than that, but I judge you for it. Maybe stop taking things at face value and look a little deeper.
There is a distinct difference between believing that we can’t, or should give up - which is what you’re accusing me of doing - and recognizing the reality that we aren’t and by all evidence, won’t. Certainly not before it’s too late.
and recognizing the reality that we aren’t and by all evidence, won’t.
That’s… literally what I’ve been saying. Have you been ignoring that? My entire point was about motivation, not ability. Your entire point seems to be that there’s no other options and nothing we can do about it. About how it’s the end of the world and we can’t do anything about it.
Sure, people aren’t right now, but a big part of that is because people aren’t accepting why. You can go on and on and on about how we’re not, but unless you put the least amount of thought into why and how to do something meaningful about it, it’s just doom-posting to trick people into thinking we should all just give up.
So. If you want to prove to me, or others, or even to yourself, that that’s not true… maybe start thinking about what we can do, or just shut up. Because we don’t need more people talking about how it’s all pointless and there’s nothing else we can do. We get plenty of that every day from people much smarter than random people on the internet.
We have a lot of problems to solve but AI is part of the solution, except that it’s being done wrong. And expensively.
There’s also a conversation to be had about which jobs shouldn’t be automated, either because current technology isn’t suitable, or because it might never be suitable. And I’d say that pretty much everything that we are calling ‘AI’ right now falls under that - I’ll say that robots are part of the solution, but I don’t think ‘AI’ is.
Even if AI is, what we have now is mostly A with only the semblance of I. “Real” “AI” is not yet “real.”
I agree. LLMs are not AGI. But there are some jobs they can do, and a lot of jobs they can assist.
But I think we’re still another generation of apparent AI stagnation, maybe another 20-30 years, before someone figures out there next link; and that might be AGI.
Oh man is translation not possible with AI. You have no idea how little languages have in common. A lot of terms don’t mean a thing, but combine concepts you don’t have or associate to point at a thing.
My dad said, about learning a new language, ‘‘cat means cat, not gato, don’t translate’’ and I think that holds up pretty well from my experience.
You can’t be serious, buddy. I’m translating an entire episode with ai and it’s turning out better than the Netflix translation!
How could you even determine that? And if you have a translation available and you know what’s wrong with it, why wouldn’t you simply fix the mistakes? What do you need the AI for?
Spoiler
Netflix subs are often quite shit, so I don’t doubt that you could improve them, with or without the help of an LLM.
Are Netflix translations done by AI?
Oh man is translation not possible with AI.
i mean, it’s pretty good at it? A lot of human translators even struggle with the same problem, the AI is just a lot faster, and significantly more versatile. That’s arguably one of it’s strongest areas of performance, is translation, because it’s so well suited to it.
AI currently completely does not understand the context of translation when it comes to visual media. Whereas a human translator can use that for additional interpretation
this is a pretty big limitation, but i think you would struggle a lot, using an AI to translate something like that, as opposed to a text block, which is mostly what it’s used for these days. It serves a purpose, i’m not saying it should replace professional translators, i just think people don’t necessarily realize there are two primary blocks of usage for these things.
You think it’s OK because it spits out grammatically correct language on your end, but if you spoke both languages you’d get how it fails. Look at translations of Korean comics if you’d like to see how badly mechanical translation is when it’s a connected story across multiple chapters, I was reading a comic where a character said he liked the elegant and sophisticated sound of calling a lightning strike skill ‘‘bolt’’ instead of whatever he was calling it ‘‘lighting strike’’ I think. It took me a while to realize what or whoever translated it didn’t know how to look at the context of the translation and find a English word that English speakers would find at least old fashioned if not archaic and of course longer or more poetic sounding. It’s like the whole thing when JRPGs can’t figure out if they should localize names by just spelling out the phonetic sounds in Roman letters or actually translating the meaning of the name, or a thing no one’s ever done and find a name in a European language family that has the same meaning.
Just like the AI art, it’s not replacing good translation, it’s replacing hack job translations, it’s replacing mediocre and predictable art. I really don’t care if someone uses AI in the pre-production or some post production functions, just not the part you need a human for, the actual creativity, there’s an adage in 3D animation ‘‘it you let the computer do it, it’s gonna suck.’’ You can let the computer do inbetweens, but you better be giving it nothing near a key frame. It has to really be the very least important frames.
i know extremely well the limitations of it, i’m just saying that it has utility, and very clearly provides a useful service.
Certainly better than hiring a translator privately to read something you’re moderately curious about, or to talk with one person. Though if you’re professionally translating something, you should obviously hire someone for it.
It’s still doing a consistently poorer job than a skilled translator, because it has no concept of nuance or tone. I encounter people getting themselves worked up over information in AI-translated news articles, so I go back to the source material and discover it’s mistranslated, under-translated, or just completely omitted parts of sentences. It’s very Purple Monkey Dishwasher.
The quality is better than it was a decade ago, sure, but that’s a pretty low bar. Back then it was gibberish, nowadays it’s natural-sounding phrases with incorrect translations.
this is true, but for the average person, who just wants to translate something to make it make somewhat sense, it’s great.
Though yeah, you can’t really trust it, there’s a lot of intricacies.
And yet, translators are losing their jobs left and right, from what I hear. Sure, quality has gone down, but most people don’t seem to care. Plus, in a lot of cases, instead of the AI doing all the work, translators proof-read AI generated texts and correct the worst mistakes. Fewer translators can translate more at a lower price this way.
Does the quality still go down a bit that way? Probably. But again, who cares? Not the people spending money on translations, that’s for sure.
I mean given that “AI” are language models built on context and relations between words I’d argue that that’s one of the more applicable jobs compared to what’s listed in OP. With none of them is it capable of doing well, but I just wouldn’t argue that translation is outside that realm of what’s listed above
The problem is that the AI doesn’t understand cultural context. I dunno where you’re from so pardon me for assuming you’re likely an English speaker.
A good translation isn’t just to translate what the text says but to communicate the same idea to the reader or viewer within their cultural context. A good example is Disney’s Aladdin where Robin Williams improvised A LOT during the recording sessions and most of his jokes are full of contemporary American cultural context. I’m Danish and most Danish kids didn’t understand these American jokes so our translators decided to switch out some jokes with other jokes that conveyed similar points but within a Danish cultural context.
An AI cannot do that. It will translate what is written and it will be fucking nonsense to the receiver because they don’t understand the context or the references.
AI is only good at translating as long as what is written can be translated 1:1. And even then I sometimes wonder. Because as a Dane I have noticed how terrible Word is at Danish when it comes to corrections. It follows English language context and will underline correct words in red and suggest alternative that aren’t real Danish. For example, Danish words are slammed together while in English they are separated = skolelærer - school teacher. Word could very well decide to red line skolelærer and suggest to you that you should separate the word and make it two = skole lærer. But in Danish that would nullify the meaning. Now it is no longer a school teacher but a school and a teacher.
And I have seen on streaming services like Netflix and on steam how they lazily threw descriptions into a translator and it is just the most broken Danish I have ever read. It is so fucked because the newer generations of Danes who use these services are being influenced by them to learn incorrect Danish.
I have very limited trust in AI to do a better job at it since it isn’t Danish people that have trained it and it doesn’t understand our culture, our history nor how we communicate with one another. Everything that comes out of digital text based platforms from the US is our language filtered and massacred through US context. It is very very bad in my opinion and incredibly lifeless and soulless.
It would be the same the other way around btw. Me writing a piece of text with significant Danish cultural context and humor, slang and references would be translated into total nonsense for an English speaker, I’m sure.
No one said that AI was doing the jobs it’s replaced people in well.
“Theft” only applies to the poor. Rich assholes and their megacorps will pay judges to tell you so
Those images look nothing alike unless you stop looking beyond the contrasted regions… Which, fair enough, could indicate someone taking the outline of the original, but you hardly need AI to do that (Tracing is a thing that has existed for a while), and it’s certainly something human artists do as well both as practice, but also just as artistic reinterpretation (Re-using existing elements in different, transformative ways).
It’s hard to argue the contrast of an image would be subjective enough to be someone’s ownership, whether by copyright or by layman’s judgement. It easily meets the burden of significant enough transformation.
It’s easy to see why, because nobody would confuse it with the original. Assuming the original is the right, it looks way better and more coherent. If this person wanted to just steal from this Arcipello, they’re doing a pretty bad job.
EDIT: And I doubt anyone denies the existence of thieves, whether using AI or not. But this assertion that one piece can somehow make sweeping judgements about multi-faceted tech by this point at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are using, from hobbyist tinkerers to technical artists, is ridiculous.
You are speaking bollocks, there are already many lawsuits by artists against the so called Ai engines, there are boundaries on how much you can copy from a specific artwork, logo, design or whatever, for example if you take the coca cola logo and slightly change it even if it doesn’t say coca cola you will still face the laws of copyright infringement, nobody denies the existence of thieves, so that’s why people do whatever they can to protect their work
Lawsuits, yes. But a lawsuit is not by default won, it is a assertion for the court to rule on. And so far regarding AI, none have been won. And yes, there are boundaries on when work turns into copyright infringement, but those have specific criteria, and regions of contrast do not suffice by any measure. Yes, even parts of the Coca Cola logo can be reinterpreted without infringing. Why do you think so many off brands skirt as close as possible to it without infringing?
They don’t! And most of those lawsuits are still in process
Thats what I said, yes.
AI can absolutely produce copyrighted content if it’s prompted to. Name drop an artist in Midjourney and you will be able to prompt their style - see this list of artists and prompted images. So you can just tweak the settings a bit to heavily weight their name, generally describe the composition of the work you’re looking to approximate, and you can absolutely produce something close to their original works.
The image is wrong because the original artwork is not stolen. It is part of a dataset by LAION (or another similar dataset, basically a text-image pair where the image is linked at its original source). To train the imagegen, its company had to download a temporary copy, which is exempt from infringement by copyright law. There is no original artwork somewhere in a database accessible by Midjourney, just the numerical relationship generated by the image-text pair it learned from.
On the other hand, AI can obviously produce content in violation of copyright - like here. But that’s specifically being prompted by the user. You can see other examples of this with Grok generating Mickey Mouse and Simpsons characters. As of right now, copyright violations are the legal responsibility of the users generating the content - not the AI itself.
I think you meant to respond to someone else, as I pretty much agree(d) with everything you’re saying and have not claimed otherwise. In fact in my very post I did say in more layman terms it was very likely this person used img2img or controlnet to copy the layout of the image, I think it’s less likely they got something this similar unguided, although it’s possible depending on the model or by somehow locking the prompt onto the original work.
But the one point I do disagree with is that this is a violation of copyright, as I explained before. For it to be a violation it would need to look substantially more similar to the original, the one consistent element between the two is the rough layout of the image (the contrasted areas), for the rest most of the content is very different. You notice the similarity of the contrasted area much more easily by it being sized down so much.
I hope you understand, as you seem to be more knowledgeable than the people that downvoted without leaving a comment, but you are allowed to use ideas and concepts from others without infringing on their work, as without it the creative industry literally couldn’t function. And yes, this is the responsibility on anyone using these models to avoid.
This person skirts too close in my eyes by pretty much 1:1 copying the layout, but it’s almost certainly still fine as again, a human doing this with an existing piece of work would also be (eg. the many replica’s / traces of the Mona Lisa).
Hell, if you take a look at the image in this very lemmy post, which was almost certainly taken from someone else, it has a much better case of copyright infringement, since it has the same layout, nearly identical people in the boxes, general message and concepts.
But in the end, copyright is different per jurisdiction and sometimes even between judges. Perhaps there is a case somewhere. It’s just (in my opinion) very unlikely to succeed based on the limited elements that are substantially similar.
EDIT: Added the section about the Mona Lisa replica’s for further clarification.
Hm yeah on second look the images aren’t as comparable as I expected. I just saw the general composition in the thumbnails and assumed more similarity. I do think they probably prompted the original artist in the generated work, though, which kind of led to my thoughts in my op.
Yeah that’s also fair enough conclusion, I think it’s a bit too convenient the rest of the image looks a lot worse (Much more clear signs of botched AI generation) while the layout remains pretty much exactly the same, which to me looks like selective generation.
Yeah sure, they will replace artists with their own stolen intellectual property which they mashed up together and spit it out back to their faces with the fake name of Ai, Congrats! humanity is definitely getting dumber and dumber every day since it cant see something like this
Translation is too complex - language changes too fast - cultural context can not me adopted well - see every translation app that tries other languages than the most common ones worldwide
deleted by creator
But you’re living in capitalism. Unless government forces billionaires to fund social programs, they will just keep getting richer, just like it’s happening right now (if we ignore the crashing markets, but you get the idea)
That’s why we used to tax the morbidly rich at a 90% rate in the 50s
When I see these kinds of posts I just look over at the vibe coders and just laugh harder than any joke about ai taking our jobs
Except Vibe-Coders are kicking back & sipping margaritas & your job is still gone
deleted by creator
I was extremely skeptical so I looked into it and it absolutely does not work. There was also a guy on YouTube who basically tried to make a Minecraft clone with Vibe coding and it just fell apart almost instantly.
All I was trying to do was get it to set up a basic scene in UE5 with some lighting effects and import a model of the building from the assets library. Nope, did not work. I didn’t even bother trying to implement game logic as it was so clearly a waste of time. The amount of time I spent trying to get it to do basic stuff, stuff that you would be able to do in UE5 after half an hour of training, I could have made significant progress on a gray box by then.
The image looks like AI…
Makes sense, the artist panel has a robot after all.
Cooking is something that requires advanced robotics or some kind of heavily modular factory-like automated meal production line, not AI. Though AI certainly could assist in the development of such.
Drivers are being actively replaced right before our eyes.
A lot of Lawyer work is already being heavily automated, even without AI. Outside of that its “technically” replaceable with AI but on a literal legal level not likely currently possible. I think automating some aspects of being a lawyer might be beneficial but certain elements would be down right dystopian if fully automated.
Doctor work being automated is also already being done, but this is arguably a very good thing, as it maybe holds the key to a lot of medical breakthroughs and might unlock the potential to sort all that personal medical data people collect ever since that became a thing. And largely might help significantly reduce the cost of highly effective personal healthcare, given sufficient time.
Teacher work probably could be partially automated but getting kids to pay attention to a lesson, discipline, safety, etc would likely require a human to be around if only for liability.
modular factory-like automated meal production line, not AI.
Define AI… LLMs are just a part of that.
Yeah, Artificial Intelligence is pretty broad category of technologies, even so, robotics and automation is not AI. You could pair a robot or an automated factory with an AI of some kind, or use an AI to design them, and they’re related to each other in that they involve computer technology. Still, not the same thing.
A robotic arm in an car factory is a robot, but it doesn’t have AI in it, they’re usually given a set of commands to repeat.
A rube goldberg machine is technically automated once initialized. Its not AI.
Meanwhile my (college btw) teacher suggests us to use ChatGPT if we need help. Bro wants to replace himself.
“Personal?” Personal what?
I’m presuming “personal assistant” and it got cut off due to being itself AI-generated slop.
Maybe it’s supposed to be “personnel”? HR hiring processes is dominated by bots now.
We will never know, because this comic was produced by AI.
And it made a glaring mistake? Who will verify these errors to ensure they don’t occur? 🤔
Maybe we can make an AI-driven editing software!
You’re one of several people saying this is from AI. I’m more familiar with the AI giveaways in text or fake photos, but not so much with comics. What makes this comic look so obviously AI generated to you?
This artistic style is specifically generated by ChatGPT 4o when you ask it to create a comic. You get a feel for it pretty quick once you have seen it a couple times, the same way you think “hey I’ve seen this artist’s work before”.
The text also looks generated - it’s too consistent to be handwritten, but too sloppy to be a font.
I definitely get generic kids book illustration vibes from it. Most of the comics I see tend to go for a more distinctive art style. I hadn’t even considered the writing, though. Thanks for sharing.
The link you posted supports that it’s AI
The original comic wasn’t produced by AI, though.
Yeah, and this one was.
Okay, but the word “personal” still presumably had some meaning in the original Portugese. An AI did not come up with that word. Google Translate isn’t sure what it could translate to in English apart from “personal”, but presumably, there’s some meaning there that the artist intended.
KOLANAKI
Drivers were on the edge for a long time. Lawyers are on the edge for the past 2-3 years. Cooks are probably the closest ones to be on the edge too.
How drivers were on the edge?
Self driving lorries have been in development stage for over 5 years. I don’t count teslas into that cause on overwhelming average cars are driven not as work. Truck, busse and train drivers were under attack for a long time.
Self driving cars have been threatened for years. Trucks are practically here (on private roads currently). The desire is strong.
Amusingly, cook is probably the safest of those positions for the time being. The physicality and necessity of presence makes it harder to automate. Lawyer, doctor, and teacher can be done remotely, and is based largely on knowledge, so they are prime targets. People are already trying it. Drivers you could see being done remotely if we had faster, more ubiquitous, net connections, so it’s doable as well. It’s basically already happening. But cooking… AI doesn’t seem like it would give you the right kind of inputs and outputs to do that any easier/faster/cheaper. It’s already possible to make a food vending machine. The limitations of vending machines aren’t really that they need an easier interface on their database. AI won’t really help there. And to go beyond that and try to make an AI powered restaurant probably wouldn’t be profitable. It’s barely profitable to run a regular restaurant most of the time. If you try to put in the probable millions to automate a restaurant, it’d probably go the same way as the self-checkout lanes at stores, which is to say poorly.
Actually have all of the jobs I would think the safest are doctors and lawyers. When your life and liberty are on the line you really don’t want an emotionless machine you want a human.
Years ago I had to have surgery on my neck to remove a benign tumor, and I absolutely wasn’t worried, I was definitely worried it would hurt but I wasn’t worried it would go wrong and I’d end up getting a major artery cut, because I trusted the person doing it, because they came and talked to me. I wouldn’t absolutely not trust a robot to do surgery, even if logically the robot would probably be better than the human.
It depends on the type of doctor and lawyer’s service. Some will remain with humans. Some will be a welcome free-up of their time to focus on the more unusual (not solvable by regressing to the mean) cases. There are many doctor’s appointments that boil down to ‘You have the flu. Here’s a beg off note for your shitty boss. Go back to bed.’ And there are many attorneys’ consultations that boil down to ‘I have taken down what you want to say, and now I will translate it into legalese.’
As for the trust, that comes from expectations. You trust a human because human surgeons are the norm. You don’t have buddies who had a robot remove their appendix. If the AI is competent, eventually that would be as normal to a patient as buying something from a vending machine.
However, I suspect surgery in particular is another of those things where it’ll take an absolute mountain of training data and a lot of risk of human health/life to even attempt, so it’s a long way off compared to the simple ‘GP writes a referral’ stuff.
Watch Prometheus by Ridley Scott, there is a scene in that movie which is on topic of the subject discussed here
