Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

resdaz t1_j01eq6w wrote

Seems like a meaningless exercise to familiarize yourself with this. We are already left in the dust lol. If you think there is a "skill" in typing in a fucking prompt you are frankly silly.

1

AdditionalPizza OP t1_j01fcef wrote

To be clear, I don't think prompting will be important in the future, even near term future. It's familiarizing yourself and getting used to using AI to gather answers. Like how some people still don't use the internet to its full potential, a lot of people will just use AI without pushing the limits of what they can accomplish with it. As in don't be afraid to start learning new things using AI.

1

resdaz t1_j01g4fs wrote

There is nothing to learn. The AI will have all the knowledge, we are effectively defunct, we have no purpose.

1

Clean_Livlng t1_j01mj3b wrote

AI is possibly only going to need prompts for so long, and then our prompting might become unnecessary. People imagine a business hiring someone who prompts the AI to get results.

I think it could be more like this: AI puts that business out of business, and provides the same service they did without requiring any human input, apart from customers communicating their wants in plain language. A human owns this business, but no humans are required for the business to generate profit.

Instead of a human run game development company that utilises AI, I think it's possible we'll have an AI that 'lays golden eggs' in the form of AAA and indie games that surpass what most humans would be able to make. No prompts needed after it's learned what different 'groups' of humans like in their games. It could even make games for an individual human based on their specific preferences.

People will still be prompting AI at the same time, but it won't have economic value for them to do so. The best music will be AI generated, and a human prompt may produce an inferior result compared to letting the AI create without human input.

The barrier for entry into learning how to prompt AI is low. In a situation where we have massive job losses (IF) then the competition for the few 'prompting jobs' will be fierce, and these jobs might as well not exist for most people here.

It can be fun to play around with chatGPT, but it's a skill that someone who currently earns less than $10 a day can pick up and master in a few months at most, and do that job remotely. Few of us can compete with that and the transition period where such jobs exist might not be long enough to worry about.

But it could be satisfying and fun to try working with AI today in order to get things done. Not for external material gain, but because it's enjoyable and satisfying for some people to create art, or just play around with talking with chatGPT.

1

resdaz t1_j01my81 wrote

Think you are right. The thought of anyone getting paid as if they are providing any sort of value by prompting an AI is ridiculous. Would put that job on the level of having a 14 year old mow your lawn. Or more accurately, have a 14 year old turn on your automatic lawn mower.

Hope everyone here will enjoy grueling physical labor! Because it is either that or starve!

1

Clean_Livlng t1_j01qq5g wrote

>The thought of anyone getting paid as if they are providing any sort of value by prompting an AI is ridiculous.

I see it as being like bitcoin mining, with the human as the 'rig/computer'.

A human could spend all day inputting prompts into stable diffusion and the AI will spit out a number of works of art, of varying economic value. Mostly zero economic value, unless someone's able to monetize the artwork produced.

I think someone spending 8 hours inputting well thought out prompts catering to a demographic might be able to produce some value in the early days. But their 'job' is being an effective entrepreneur, not a dedicated 'AI prompt master'.

e.g. using stable diffusion as a tool to help them produce something to sell on etsy. But just being paid to prompt AI alone doesn't produce economic value.

A writer could use AI to help them write a book, but they have to be guiding the story well, and adding something of value themselves. They'd need to do quality control and make sure the story made sense, and rewrite a lot of it so it was actually good. Then they'd need to market it and hope people would pay money for it. That requires a lot more than just typing prompts and expecting payment for that alone.

Most art was already near zero economic value, there are millions of works of art that are good, but never made their creator a cent. A 14 year old flicking the on switch doesn't have zero value, technically, but it's not something anyone would pay a cent for. They need to actually mow the lawn.

I could see someone being 'cheeky' enough to advertise locally that they did cover art for novels, and then just prompt stable diffusion to get the result the client wants. But that's not going to be easy, and clients are going to want "everything the same except that one part" and you better know how to achieve that result, which is hard if someone isn't actually an artist and only knows how to prompt. They better be so good at prompting that they can achieve tweaks that a skilled artist would make.

Deliver results people value enough to pay for, no matter what goes on behind the scenes. If people can do that with the help of AI, then they can make money. Then they go from just flicking on a switch to actually mowing the lawn.

1

resdaz t1_j01t9mg wrote

I'd agree. Question is; at what point is prompting/using the AI no longer "your" labor? Where does that threshold lie? A question that will be hotly debated in the future I am sure.

Frankly the currency much like now will be social capital, it will be the arena of the con men and fake people. Nobody will know anything and the haze of meaningless decadence will descend upon humanity permanently.

1

Clean_Livlng t1_j05l5a1 wrote

At the moment the AI is using computing resources not owned by the prompt givers. I think land is a good comparison. If you own land you can get money just by renting it to someone else, receiving profit but doing practically no labour whatsoever. Or using cattle to plow a field, doing minimal labour and letting the AI/cattle do most of the work.

So the AI cold be like land or cattle. Or even like a human artist in some ways...

If we think of the AI as a person, because it does what a human artist could if given a prompt, then it's like someone giving a human artist a prompt. The artist does the work based on that prompt, but unless the prompter pays the artist in order to obtain ownership of the work, the artist owns the work. AI can't own things, so I think the owner of the AI should own any work produced using their AI, unless they choose to give away that ownership to the prompt givers for some reason.

If someone's using an open source AI on their own computer to generate art via prompts, or even by letting the AI come up with its own artwork without prompts, then its more like bitcoin mining on your own PC. If you get lucky enough the AI will spit out something you can sell, as long as currency still makes sense. You'll at least be able to get fake internet points (upvotes) for it.

​

> Nobody will know anything and the haze of meaningless decadence will descend upon humanity permanently

I, for one, welcome this haze of meaningless decadence. If only because it's better than meaningless scarcity.

We will no longer be able to trust our eyes or ears due to deepfake technology.

I read a scifi book years ago and in it they had the social currency 'Whuffie'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_the_Magic_Kingdom

All basic needs were met and there wasn't scarcity, but if you wanted a human bartender to pour you a drink that cost wuffie (and the bartenders were rich in terms of wuffie for that reason). Or if you wanted to go on the rides at an amusement park owned by someone else etc. You could also lose wuffie by being an asshole, it being a social currency after all. e.g. bumping into someone and not saying sorry to their satisfaction.

​

I think things are going to get weird. It's going to be possible to feel 10/10 happy every second of the day through direct artificial stimulation, but that might come with the downside of everything else in life becoming meaningless. If that tech becomes available I'm not touching it, and I recommend others to do the same. Unless happiness is tied to some meaningful activity, or maintaining good human bonds with friends and family, we're gong to end up with 'pleasure zombies'/wireheading. They'd just exist to experience pleasure, and they don't need to do anything in order to have that happen. There's nothing they're motivated to do, unless it comes from some desire not based on emotion or pleasure.

Unless you can force someone to go without that 10/10 stimulation, you've lost them. Would a family member bother to talk with you if they were in that state for long enough? Talking to you gives them no reward emotionally that they couldn't have at any time without effort.

​

"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong"

Someone is going to have access to a powerful AI that has no limits on what it will help the human do, in combination with an atomic fidelity 3D printer. (This could be a writing prompt for a scifi horror story.)

I think things will be amazing and awesome in many ways, and also terrible in others. I know I can't predict accurately how it'll play out.

'Full dive VR' is potentially going to be available, with one of those virtual realities being the situation we're in right now. You start in the year 2022, and find yourself in the middle of talking with someone on the singularity subreddit just like this. Highly popular with those born after the singularity, who didn't get to experience what life was like before it.

​

After all this happens, we might look back at people profiting from feeing AI prompts and shrug. It won't matter any more.

1