AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[trappedslider]

None of these are the same, because of scale. People love to ignore it, love to make these false equivalencies, but often I believe that comes from a place of ignorance, as they dont understand automation, scripting, and what an AI that could actually understand and call itself, without hallucinations (lol) could do.

We survived auto factories going automation.

12 Most Automated Industries in the US

In this article, we will take a detailed look at the 12 Most Automated Industries in the US, with insights into the automation industry and trends. For a quick overview of the top 5 automated industries, read our article 5 Most Automated Industries in the US. Industrial robots were invented 50...

finance.yahoo.com

Yet I don't see any one crying or arguing against using 3d printers being used instead of all the workers needed to build a house. Amazon itself uses robot in their warehouses and no one cries about job loss there.

7 companies that are replacing human jobs with robots

The future is now.

www.businessinsider.com

f the latter, given that several criticism about AI can be applied to several other human activities, it is fair to ask why we should be singling out AI over these other things, and in several cases it seems to me that the answers here tend to boil down to "well, we don't like AI very much".

From my view it's because of capitalism and this is just another side effect of it that adds fuel to the fire is dislike/hatred. But since that's a topic that isn't allowed here outside of PMs (but trust them they have something better in mind even if they won't share via pm ) this is the closest we can get. There's also the fact that it's having an impact on something dear and near to the hearts of many on this forum.

Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean here.


It may not excuse it, but that is part of the argument used to show that AI is bad in the first place, so you (generic) can't just hand weave it away. Let me clarify with a passage from the the same article that @Art Waring linked above



Relative comparison of the energy usage by AI vs other technologies is used to, among other things, to persuade the reader that we should not want AI. So why is the same kind of argument not valid when rebutting the thesis, or at the very least when pointing out the cherry picking in the initial comparison?

Not to mention that the article is comparing apple to oranges. Cloud storage and AI do different things. There is no doubt that an airplane consumes more power than a bicycle, but they have different use cases. You can't use a bicycle to do the things an airplane does, so comparing their relative energy use has little sense.

Which leaves us with the second part of AI being unnecessary and replacing people, and it seems to me that either somebody was already convinced or won't be convinced by arguments like the above article, which is why I said that several posts (definitely not all, and probably not even the majority, but enough that they stand out to me) seem to boil down to "well, we don't like AI".

What's interesting is this doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/...v3GELs8TGmqOYBvug/edit#heading=h.99iw69a88n37

which i've linked to before and even copied and pasted parts of and was most recently updated as of Aug 1st goes into each argument and points out a counter or invalidates it.

 

[briggart]

I agree that AI is just a symptom, the root cause is deeper. But addressing that will take a longer timescale, by which AI has the potential to do a lot of damage if not properly regulated. And as you said, discussing this is likely outside of what's allowed here.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean here.


It may not excuse it, but that is part of the argument used to show that AI is bad in the first place, so you (generic) can't just hand weave it away. Let me clarify with a passage from the the same article that @Art Waring linked above



Relative comparison of the energy usage by AI vs other technologies is used to, among other things, to persuade the reader that we should not want AI. So why is the same kind of argument not valid when rebutting the thesis, or at the very least when pointing out the cherry picking in the initial comparison?

Not to mention that the article is comparing apple to oranges. Cloud storage and AI do different things. There is no doubt that an airplane consumes more power than a bicycle, but they have different use cases. You can't use a bicycle to do the things an airplane does, so comparing their relative energy use has little sense.

Which leaves us with the second part of AI being unnecessary and replacing people, and it seems to me that either somebody was already convinced or won't be convinced by arguments like the above article, which is why I said that several posts (definitely not all, and probably not even the majority, but enough that they stand out to me) seem to boil down to "well, we don't like AI".

My take. Creatives finally realized their work may can be automated away like the vast majority of human jobs have been and will be. That's not a good feeling and especially not when you imagined you were immune, but it's something people in almost every other industry have grappled with. The pace of transformation can be a problem, and it always has been. In the past those people affected had the ability to be retrained for another industry, etc.

However, what we have not experienced yet and AI has the capacity for is to render nearly all human labor worthless. Meaning no jobs for the vast majority of people.

Now I have my doubts that we are anywhere near that point. I think generative AI has some major flaws that will hold it back from causing that kind of disruption. But that doesn't mean tomorrows tech buzzword won't achieve that. What we can definitively say is that gen AI has made us all aware of this possibility, and it's scary.

I think if gen ai was just going to affect creatives then reminding them there's a long line of people who have had their jobs automated away would be mostly justified. But if the hype is real then it's not just them - it will be almost everyone.

 

[Scribe]

Yet I don't see any one crying or arguing against using 3d printers

I have.

 

[borringman]

Creatives finally realized their work may can be automated away like the vast majority of human jobs have been and will be.

That's not what's happening though. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Ford revolutionized automaking, for example, because before he made advancements to supply chain management and assembly line production, automobiles were hand-made and very expensive. They were real-life rarities, more like curiosities. Art has never had that problem. The entry cost is too low -- just scribbling on the dirt with a stick is art. Even your superstars with serious negotiating leverage, your Taylor Swifts and other A-listers, they continue to get business because it's still very lucrative for the producers. The cost of art has never held society back. Pretty much the only creators that can't afford to buy art are, well, sorts like indie TTRPG designers who live hand-to-mouth so their art budget is zero. Except their budget for basically everything else is zero, too.

What's going on here with "AI" is more analogous to real estate developers in the postwar U.S. deciding that they could restructure society itself for their own greedy ends, popularize suburban life with sprawling lots of tract housing with long commutes and chemical-saturated lawns of Poa pratensis. The country did have an acute housing shortage in the 1940s, but the execution couldn't have been worse. Absolutely none of it, not a single darn thing, was conceived with any benefit to society whatsoever, it was basically a horrific idea on every level. And it worked. It's been an unmitigated disaster yet people are completely convinced they're happy with the result (although they're taking antidepressants like candy and the mental health system is strained well beyond breaking point) and so we have HOAs that very aggressively enforce this dystopian status quo because the way people used to live has all but left living memory. No one questions it anymore.

Silicon Valley is playing the same game. They're not revolutionizing society for anyone's benefit. They're using their vast resources to insist on a solution that never had a problem, convinced if they can keep it up long enough they'll eventually reach a critical mass of idiots pounding their fists that they can't live without "AI" anymore. And it's working.

 

[trappedslider]

Announcing Flux by Black Forest Labs: The Next Leap in Text-to-Image Models

Flux, the largest SOTA open source text-to-image model to date, developed by Black Forest Labs—the original team behind Stable Diffusion is now available on fal. Flux pushes the boundaries of creativity and performance with an impressive 12B parameters, delivering aesthetics reminiscent of...

blog.fal.ai

I played around with it last night on nightcafe via free generation tokens and got some good stuff for example

 

[trappedslider]

well now they are coming for dentist too

Fully-automatic robot dentist performs world's first human procedure

Nightmare fuel? Maybe – but in a historic moment for the dental profession, an AI-controlled autonomous robot has performed an entire procedure on a human patient for the first time, about eight times faster than a human dentist could do it.

newatlas.com

and plan to get a job at an amazon warehouse...hold your horses:

Amazon Grows To Over 750,000 Robots As World's Second-Largest Private Employer Replaces Over 100,000 Humans

Amazon.com Inc. is rapidly advancing its use of robotics, deploying over 750,000 robots to work alongside its employees. The world's second-largest private employer employs 1.5 million people. While that's a lot, it's a decrease of over 100,000 employees from the 1.6 million workers it had in...

finance.yahoo.com

also Samsung

Samsung to build all-AI, no-human chip factories - Asia Times

Samsung Electronics is planning to fully automate its semiconductor factories by 2030, with “smart sensors” set to control the manufacturing process, according to South Korean media reports. The world’s largest maker of memory chips aims to create an “artificial intelligence fab” that operates...

asiatimes.com

 

[Scribe]

Sorry, but it looks like we’re in for one shortly.

Annnnnnnd now a rally.

The market is a scam.

 

[Scribe]

well now they are coming for dentist too

Yeah, I'll pass on that.

Hope you folks who are younger enjoy working outdoors and like moving dirt.

 

[trappedslider]

Annnnnnnd now a rally.

The market is a scam.

so is existence