Technological progress reduces the amount of work required to perform certain tasks. In any just system, this would improve the lives of the general population, either by reducing the amount of work required to make a living, or by increasing the amount and range of products and services.
If technological progress does not do that, and instead makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, the problem isn’t technological progress, but the system in which it is applied.
So what I’m saying is this: AI isn’t the problem. AI replacing employees isn’t the problem. The problem is that with a class divide into investors and workers, the ones profiting the most from technological progress are the investors.
And this tracks with AI itself too, and the tendency to close source the models.
This, right here, is the actual issue with current AIs. Corporate power over things we increasingly need in our everyday life, censorship rules instated by unelected people up above, ability to shut model down for those who don’t pay, etc.
The technology itself is great! Now make it work in the public interest and don’t even try to say “AI is dangerous, so we would surely take proper care of it by closing it off from everyone and doing our shenanigans”. Nope.
Are you saying societal asymmetry is a social problem, not a technical one?
Technological progress shouldn’t reduce the amount of work required to do tasks. It should reduce the amount of people that have to do work they don’t enjoy, or increase the quality of living overall by reducing the cost of certain tasks/items.
For example, it shouldn’t try to make redundant the work of artists that enjoy making art, or hobbyists that enjoy writing code. If there is too much demand for these services, then technology can be used to compensate for the part that these work enjoying people can’t provide, but technology shouldn’t make their work redundant.
It isn’t replacing artists. It’s a tool that makes it easier for everyone.
Meaning the competition increases and prices drop.
Cringe take. Should we abolish computers too because they made making music way easier? Make each type beat guy hire an orchestra of his own, craft his own instruments? Lol this is lemmy.world alright.
no, that’s fine because that is compensating for demand that can’t be supplied for by people that enjoy what they’re doing
I mean, for $20 a month I now am part of the “investor” class. I get to have my little AI minion do work for me, and I totally reap the rewards.
$20/month is a very low barrier to entry into the bourgeoisie, so I’m not too worried about capitalism being incapable of spreading the good around to everybody.
The thing I am worried about is the ultra heavy regulation — the same sort of thing that makes it illegal to make quesadillas on a hot plate and sell them on the sidewalk, which even a homeless person could do if it weren’t illegal.
There is far too much regulation (always in the name of safety of course, of course) restricting people from being entrepreneurs. That regulation forces everyone to have some minimum amount of capital before they can start their own business, and that amount of capital is enormous.
I worry that our market is not free enough to enable everyone to benefit from AI. The ladder of success has had the bottom rungs removed, forcing us to suck of either a government or corporate tit like babies — protected, but powerless, and without dignity.
The Big fear that a lot of people have with AI isn’t the technology itself moreseo the fact that its advancements are likely to lead to a even more disproportionate distribution of wealth
…and no remote work! Office real estate will loose it’s value banks become sad.
Displacing millions of workers
I have seen what AI outputs at an industrial scale, and I invite you to replace me with it while I sit back and laugh.
my company announced today that they were going to start a phased rollout where AI would provide first responses to tickets, with it initially being “reviewed” by humans with the eventual goal being it just sending responses unsupervised. The strength of my "OH HELL NO" derailed the entire meeting for a solid 15 minutes lmao
It’s not about entirely replacing people. It’s about reducing the number of people you hire in a specific role because each of those people can do more using AI. Which would still displace millions of people as companies get rid of the lowest performing of their workers to make their bottom line better.
It’s not about entirely replacing people
Tell yourself that all you wish. Then maybe go see this thread about Spotify laying off 1500 people and having a bit of a rough go with it. If they could they would try to replace every salaried/contracted human with AI.
Yeah I’m not arguing that replacing people isnt what they want to do. They absolutely could if they would. I was just responding to the person saying they can’t be replaced cause AI can’t do what they do perfectly yet. My point was that at least for now it’s not entirely replacing people but still displacing lots of people as AI is making people able to do more work.
I’m more afraid of the flood of AI Generated CSAM and the countless people affected by non-consensual porn.
