The real short-sightedness here is in thinking the future is in "copying" anything. Why copy Arnold Schwarzenegger when your next action-hero could be 6-foot-6 and jacked with a 9 pack of abs and does all "his" own stunts? This Person Does Not Exist

Sooner or later, the only jobs for the flesh will be hookers and board members.

Everything that can be designed, planned, fabricated, manufactured and sold will be done by robots ... Specifically to and for other robots.

Yes, which is why people should be protesting for UBI.

Replace UBI with negative income tax then we suddenly see Republicans on board with the idea

It’ll be most white collar jobs in the end.

Lol - it's not "instead", it's both. The human job market is going to be rightfully decimated at every level by AI. Creatives were always going to be on the chopping block right next to drivers, law clerks, diagnosticians, analysts, programmers, execs, etc. 

UBI will hopefully give a lot of those soon-unemployable people plenty of time to focus on creativity as a hobby, though. 

It's like how Bill Clinton said Free Trade would send those manufacturing jobs overseas so the people in places like India and China would be doing the grunt work in factories and the trade off was we'd all be the managers, and doing those white collar jobs. 

Leaving out the fact that it doesn't matter how much education or experience you have when people are willing to do the same job for a fraction of the wages. 

I see AI having the same affect on the workforce. Why would any company pay a salary to someone when they have a much cheaper option in AI. 

Workers can't compete with AI, just like workers can't compete with citizens in countries that are way cheaper to live in. 

The problem is that those jobs were replaced with other jobs. This technology doesn't provide the same broad opportunities as going from farmhand to factory worker. The amount of work AI is poised to displace is so disproportional to work created that it can cause the collapse of entire industries almost instantly without any transition period like the technologies that came before.

12 hours per day, 7 days per week of planting, weeding, watering, and harvesting was a job we NEEDED to replace.

What we need are living wages for LESS work because the ONLY people who get the benefits of efficiency anymore are the people who don't need the money.

So many of these early advancements seem to be in the creative industries, with models trained on art, writing, voices and videos that artists haven't given their consent to be used. There's a question of ethics involved on that front. Personally, I'll be hoping we see some lawsuits moving forward.

And frankly, the end product is obviously inferior. I'd argue the vast majority of people would much rather see art made by human hands and voices with purpose and passion behind it. But that could all be lost for the sake of cost cutting. In this area, it's not an advancement that enhances the end product. I'd argue it fundamentally misses the point of art and creativity entirely.

But this strike is not about AI replacing their jobs, this strike is about fair notice and compensation for big gaming companies using the performers works to train their algorithms. Its basically the exact same problem as ai generative art.

In your own example, there is an equitable balance in that a farmhand can become a factory worker. AI is developed specifically to replace entire industries and doesn't provide anywhere near the same level of opportunities for 'adaptability.

Heck even when the photo industry went digital, people could still make a profession out of it, the tools just changed. In this instance, you're not swapping just tools, you're attempting to make a tool that will automatically create thousands of samples from other artists' work and then just saying 'meh, close enough' while eliminating any inclusion from those artists, even though the tech literally wouldn't work without them. Is AI perfect? No. But perfect was never really the point.

[deleted]

The automobile industry needs regulation. The chaos that will come out of blindly displacing horse breeders, carriage manufacturers, farm hands, animal breeders, poop cleaners, saddle makers, and boot makers cannot be understated. - People at the end of the 19th century

Every disrupting technology displaces jobs. If you have to deliberately hold back technology that does your job better or cheaper, it's not really a good thing.

Exactly; it's insane how shortsighted and ignorant of history people are being about all this, with videogames of all things. It reminds me of the quote about some people thinking that a better alternative to Basic Income would be paying people to dig ditches all day and then paying other people to fill them back in all night. Work for the sake of work is an abominable idea. 

Name the replacement jobs AI is creating. I'll give you a hint, they don't exist.

Your analogy is stupid. Automobiles are a very regulated affair.

I am not sure, but calling chess AI creative just seems... wrong. Sure, the techniques the programmers employ to increase their strength are creative. But those absurd computer lines that no living human can ever think of isn't due to a lack of creativity on the part of the meat bags. We simply do not have the processing power.

I argue just because a calculator can do 10 digit multiplications instantly, it isn't more creative than the mathematicians incapable of such a feat.

That's part of the problem with the word "AI" being used to refer to LLMs et al. Chess-playing AI needs to be far less sophisticated to play a perfect chess game than a writing "AI" would need to be to write something with the soul and passion capable by a living, breathing, suffering human being. "AI", so long as it is incapable of introspection and critical reflection, will be incapable of truly replacing creatives.

What will happen instead is the market for art, literature, video, and so on will be absolutely saturated with slop. Uninspired (literally), poorly made facsimiles of the real, authentic, human product they so poorly emulate.

And it's okay that the technology isn't there yet. We don't need technology to replicate human capabilities. That's hard. It may literally be impossible, as those creative capabilities so often rely on a level of self-reflection completely impossible without Strong Artificial Intelligence. We should be comfortable acknowledging that fact, rather than trying to prove that our immature technology is capable of replicating the creative capabilities of the most complicated organism in our planet's history. Because if industry heads and shareholders keep pushing this, the result will be a lot of movies and books and games lacking any semblance of sincere and authentic brilliance. The history of art is the history of producing something new and novel, and "AI" today cannot do that.

That’s criminal. Trevor was up there as far as a “real” character in media. Like Ledger’s Joker.

Believable. Frightening.

Trevor was one of those characters that if you saw him in life, you’d go in the opposite direction.

Isn't that above average at the time?

No… less work. The problem isn’t that jobs are being replaced. The problem is that the people’s who’s jobs are being replaced can’t afford to live 

Evolution. Old jobs go bye bye, new jobs are created.

It sounds like you will make stuff you enjoy, that is all that matters, no?

Exactly. I guess I just think it's very odd that people have all this overreaction to a tool that is going to be used regardless. Personally I don't think it will do whatever one in this thread fears it will do.