DyingShell t1_iw0erdg wrote
Reply to comment by RobleyTheron in The CEO of OpenAI had dropped hints that GPT-4, due in a few months, is such an upgrade from GPT-3 that it may seem to have passed The Turing Test by lughnasadh
that quote is equally stupid to the one that came before, the reality is that nobody know when human level AI might occur, that's impossible to predict. Also it doesn't need human intelligence to replace most jobs and that is what is the most important to increase quality of life.
RobleyTheron t1_iw1dbmp wrote
There are two comments here, first the attack on the quote, fine. The point is we cannot measure time to human level AI in years, but it must be in technological breakthroughs.
Second, yes AI will replace jobs. It's going to be a lot slower than most people predict. However, economies are naturally dynamic. 140 years ago 96% of Americans were involved in agriculture. Today it's more like 1.6%.
Despite that, our economy didn't fall off a cliff. We have hovered at near record unemployment for several years now. Automation and improvement is a normal part of life.
TheLastSamurai t1_iwcypfs wrote
Yeah but you could be over learning that past lesson, which happens at times in history.
The difference between this and say anything else in our existence is the machines can program better machines. We are not needed at that point.
Mooide t1_iw11g2o wrote
Increase quality of life for who? The people who used to do those jobs will starve.
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw157jc wrote
Yes, you know, like all the farmers and other poor people that started to starve to death when we invented machines and better farming practices.
Innovation always leads to worse outcomes, don't you know? That's why we do it. /s
TheTomatoBoy9 t1_iw2gqc4 wrote
There's a pretty big difference between a change happening over generations and a change happening in a timespan shorter than a generation.
In 1880, something like 50% of Americans were farmers, but the change was slow enough that the son or grand son would move to the city for a better economical outcome.
The farmer didn't wake up one morning to find his farm completely automated with drones everywhere.
The fear is that the change will be too sudden for economies to adapt and governments to implement policies like UBI. The creation of new jobs or fields is also unlikely to just happen overnight. But if the sudden change led to high unemployment and social unrest, how long can we wait for those new fields to appear while society is thrown into relative chaos?
Like many others, you seem to have this rose tinted glasses view of massive layoffs but it's OK because a massive proportion of the population will just magically requalifify for another field in like a month and poof, back on the job.
Same braindead idea as the people going "learn to code" to like a trucker lmao
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw2j6tr wrote
Fair enough. The rate of technological advancement keeps increasing.
So far, what you’re describing never occurred. It even has a name in economics: The Lump of Labour fallacy.
However, as changes become more and more rapid, it might be the case that labour will not be able to adjust as quickly.
In any case, I’m not particularly worried because I believe that even if it all goes to shit, it will be short term pain for long term gain. Humanity has dealt with so much worse over the ages and we’ve always managed to prevail. If a revolution of some kind becomes necessary to guarantee UBI or something like that, then be it.
In any case, long term we will be in a better society. And that’s what I ultimately care about (and not having to work too).
Mooide t1_iw15jgv wrote
Only a few people can afford the IP for AI so unless they are philanthropists, their primary goal will be profit, not improving quality of life for the masses.
For an example, look at Jeff Bezos, and then look at the shitty conditions his warehouse workers deal with.
nembajaz t1_iw1fllf wrote
All innovations found their way to become everyday bargain, and after a while, most of them are just public domain, especially knowledge. Just try to use it!
GuyWithLag t1_iw236tu wrote
>Only a few people can afford the IP for AI
Only a few people can afford the IP for AI Google, yet everyone has it at their fingertips.
Same thing will happen again, unfortunately.
Talkat t1_iw23v7l wrote
Jeff can get away with it because of the government. You shouldn't blame Jeff for been so greedy, but the US government for allowing it
Ischmetch t1_iw2bnkl wrote
It’s fair to blame both.
kaityl3 t1_iw484no wrote
Maybe we shouldn't be comparing such a different type of entity/intelligence to humans. For whatever reason, the prevailing mindset seems to be "until it can do everything a human can do, it's not actually sentient or intelligent. Once it can do everything we can do, then we might consider thinking of it as conscious..."
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments