It isn’t inevitable at all, unless by “knowledge jobs” you very strictly mean mindless computational tasks that humans could do but would be extremely time intensive. Computers won’t replace writers, even as they put writers out of work. We will just get worse and worse writing as humans are priced out of the process.It's inevitable that computers will take most knowledge jobs. They aren't there today, but they will be.
Any flippant statement will be an oversimplification. I’m not here to write a dissertation on the limitations of computer intelligence. People want to believe that JARVIS is right around the corner, when that will probably never exist.I don't know how much you know about the field, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a drastic oversimplification of what is going on under the hood in these models.
I’m fine with using it as a blanket term the same as one might refer to all of them as “computers”.Contextual language encoding in 7k-dimensional space (or however many dimensions they're using for modern LLMs) is really good at conceptual encoding, provided sufficient training data (which is, of course, another point of contention, but for other reasons). GANs were a good start and the diffusion models are scarily good, and despite issues I see hallucination as a beneficial side-effect that has use cases and other interesting implications.
It also seems to me that "AI" is becoming almost useless as a general description. Almost nothing said in this thread applies to computer vision, for instance, but CNNs certainly fall under the label of "AI."
People’s livelihoods, and the ability in general to make a living by making art, matters right now and in the long run.It's also important to understand that in the media, "AI" is a misleading and often outright wrong term for what is happening. LLMs are only one kind of "AI" and they only do well what LLMs do well. Is AGI -- what you really need to eliminate actual jobs -- right around the corner. If you listen to the techbros trying to gather financing, yes. Inreality we are still a long way off from AGI, and will probably never have what people actually think of when they think."AI."
All that said, massive models that can work to find new drugs and develop new physics are coming fast and will change the world in collaboration with experts. Folks need to stop worrying about crappy generative art and text. That stuff is not going to be important in the long run.
Sure, but this isn't an AI issue, nor is it new. It is a technology issue and has been for, literally, ever. No one cares that there aren't switchboard operators anymore, and nor should they. Technology changes labor -- that is largely its whole job.People’s livelihoods, and the ability in general to make a living by making art, matters right now and in the long run.
Digital switchboards didn't fill every encyclopedia with competing incoherent lies and the radio with babbling chaos though. 'Technology Marches On' isn't an excuse for just flagrant, rampant misuse.Sure, but this isn't an AI issue, nor is it new. It is a technology issue and has been for, literally, ever. No one cares that there aren't switchboard operators anymore, and nor should they. Technology changes labor -- that is largely its whole job.
You may note that I was directly responding to a statement about labor. Are you worried about AI stealing jobs from propagandists?Digital switchboards didn't fill every encyclopedia with competing incoherent lies and the radio with babbling chaos though. 'Technology Marches On' isn't an excuse for just flagrant, rampant misuse.
People don’t care about switchboard operators because the profession largely ended over 50 years ago but there are a whole slew of other jobs that aren’t dying as rapidly but are still in their death throes and people care very, very much about those - enough to vote for political parties willing to entertain them.Sure, but this isn't an AI issue, nor is it new. It is a technology issue and has been for, literally, ever. No one cares that there aren't switchboard operators anymore, and nor should they. Technology changes labor -- that is largely its whole job.
I suppose it dates back at least as far as Douglas Adams in the 1980s, who observed that the VCR was invented to watch TV for you so you didn’t have to.That's a joke that my staff likes to use.
After my kids had a bunch off from school in a row (they seem to have more 4-day weeks than they have 5-day weeks) I made the joke (not meaning to offend teachers), "This teaching job would be so much better without any kids!".
Soon we twisted the above at my Comic & Game store to, "This job would be so much better without any customers!"
Now, the not-funny part of it is that there seems to be A LOT of businesses these days that appear to be trying to find a way to make money while not actually doing the job that they are designed to do.
The joke is both funny and not funny at the same time!