Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9797867" data-attributes="member: 177">The objections to generative AI are recent, not "sudden", and are so because the concerted pressure for its widespread corporate adoption is similarly recent.  OpenAI only started trying to monetize ChatGPT in February 2023, for example.  And, objection to technology taking away people's jobs is hardly "sudden" - it is as old as technology taking people's jobs.  First off, you are comparing now to your youth.  I don't know how old you are, but that's probably... 20+ years, yes?  So, you are saying a generation later things are good.  That skips over the ones directly impacted by the change, which is very convenient.And it is common - it is easy to refer to the long-term, macro-economic situation ("the world didn't end") and elide over the detailed human costs.  I don't know precisely which events you are speaking of, so I won't try to address them.  But, broadly and historically speaking, major job dislocation isn't just, "They find another job."  Jobs that they are trained for go away, and don't exist.  For many, if a next job exists, it is a lower-paying role.  Job dislocation will cause many to spend their savings, so families lose generational wealth, or ability to retire.  Folks lose their healthcare, their housing.  Substance addiction rates among those impacted rise.The model to look at here is Detroit.  Yes, today, Detroit is doing pretty well.  But, after the automobile industry crashed in the 70s, it took decades for the city to recover, which implies tens to hundreds of thousands of lives were impacted for a generation and more.Or, we can look at Appalachian coal country, which has not really recovered from the loss of the coal and steel industries.  By no means am I saying that the world should not adopt technological change.  I am saying that wonton adoption causes harm that we can mitigate if we actually approach things thoughtfully.   You would see much less resistance to change if you actually offered those who will be impacted something to help them through that change, or you targeted the change to boost, rather than replace, the people impacted.Until you actually think in terms of managing change, you generate, and earn, resistance.</blockquote>

Verification