Artanthos t1_itrz9kh wrote
Reply to comment by AdditionalPizza in With all the AI breakthroughs and IT advancements the past year, how do people react these days when you try to discuss the nearing automation and AGI revolution? by AdditionalPizza
Increased productivity means fewer people are required to do the same job.
People just assume they won’t be the one laid off.
Baron_Samedi_ t1_its4nky wrote
... Or it means you can take on bigger jobs.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_its74b3 wrote
Only for so long though. You can't just keep increasing output.
Baron_Samedi_ t1_itsa99m wrote
That remains to be seen.
I do not believe there's an upper limit on human creativity.
Evnogena t1_itsop7f wrote
Yeah. The value of human artistic creative endeavors is already ephemeral and highly subjective. There'll aways be an audience for it, people willing to consume, it's not like the A.I. will be stealing the whole 'market'.
There is infinite availability for such new creative endeavors, and a never ending demand for the supply. It might lose value, but even if A.I. takes over the majority of the field, people will still go for human artists for the same reason people still buy physical books. Because they want to, because they like it, and because that's all that matters at the end of the day for endeavors of a creative nature.
ninjasaid13 t1_ittcrl4 wrote
Until AI starts scanning the human brain for the perfect artwork that activates all the pleasure center of the brain.
Baron_Samedi_ t1_ittu7l5 wrote
AI will discover that the perfect artwork must be made by a human. Without the human side of the story, art is that much less relatable.
Shamwowz21 t1_iu2dcx9 wrote
There is on unenhanced. The limiter is your lifespan, and if you even have time and security to be creative. I agree that once memory and speed is not an issue, it will have no limit (bar insanity).
visarga t1_ittgjnj wrote
Just imagine 25 years ago, could you have predicted the explosion of work related to the internet? There's development, content creation, communications, commerce and education. Practically it's a double of the physical world. It made us more efficient by a large margin and yet here we are, employed with jobs. Even delivery people and taxi drivers get jobs from the internet.
How is that logic "automating even part of a job leads to layoffs" standing up to the test? I think the correct answer is that we scale up work to match the available capacity instead of firing people. Our desires scale up faster than automation or resources.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_itu8qaj wrote
>Just imagine 25 years ago, could you have predicted the explosion of work related to the internet?
We knew it would be big, we weren't sure how. But with automation, specifically targeting jobs that are mostly done over the internet first, it isn't especially difficult to imagine those jobs in tech being replaced by new tech. Evolution of tech companies.
If we look at it from the perspective of corporations instead of individuals with morals, it makes sense for companies to want to do these "new" high paying jobs with automation. The age of AI will dwarf the age of the internet. It's not really a good comparison.
>How is that logic "automating even part of a job leads to layoffs" standing up to the test?
We haven't had automation that can do every aspect of a job better than a human. I'm not trying to convince people to join me in panic, I have some anxiety about it, but the absolute disregard and "everything will be fine and life will go on the way it always has" is not a productive mindset. I'm asking you, call it hypothetically if you want, what if you're wrong? Are you so confident you haven't given any other option even a moment of thought?
>Our desires scale up faster than automation or resources.
Except it won't if automation starts scaling anywhere near the rate of technological innovation.
Look, I realize there's those of us that probably worry too much and we sound crazy, but the majority of people probably don't worry enough. You can call it being grounded, but I can call it being unprepared. Even if it's somewhere in the middle, which it hopefully will be, do you personally have any ideas for the mere possibility? What would the best course of action be if a significant amount of people are unemployed? If your job is safe, do you think it's fair if a UBI exists? Would you take UBI if your job was replaced and you had to feed your family? Can you even imagine a world post-scarcity and people not working?
Lawjarp2 t1_itu13pt wrote
It's impossible to keep up as AI gets better and better, faster then any human could possibly retrain themselves
Baron_Samedi_ t1_ituht7d wrote
Our brains are pretty awesome computational devices. The most complex objects in the known universe. Good enough at what they do to harvest and sort vast quantities of information and render the reality we experience.
Augmented and hooked directly into the net, they should enable us to ride the cresting waves of the singularity along with our machines, if we so choose.
Lawjarp2 t1_itunzod wrote
Augmentation itself can create singularity. So no arguments there but augmentation is much more difficult a problem to solve than creating AGI. Undoubtedly AGI will come well before it.
Baron_Samedi_ t1_ituzoz1 wrote
Sure, and if you are an AGI trying to bootstrap your intelligence/abilities at an accelerating rate, why not work out tech that enables you to take advantage of a network of the biological computational systems that designed you in the first place?
ConsiderationKind498 t1_itsef9z wrote
Exactly
KimmiG1 t1_ittnt26 wrote
Higher productivity also makes it cheaper which often has increased demand. I can easely see more people, even for private use, will hire designers as long as its cheap enough.
So until the whole process gets fully automated your job is likely safe, as long as you learn the new ai tools.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_itu7c8a wrote
There's a pretty quick diminishing return on lower prices increasing demand. Razor thin margins with high volume usually leads to price increases until you maintain the perfect balance for profit.
There's just not an unlimited output that companies can produce and still be successful, especially with thin margins.
Capitalism chases quarterly profits, you lay people off to balance output to sales.
Artanthos t1_itv988b wrote
Any commodity can be produced at higher volumes.
But production at higher volumes will decrease the price until production is no longer profitable.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments