Technological progress reduces the amount of work required to perform certain tasks. In any just system, this would improve the lives of the general population, either by reducing the amount of work required to make a living, or by increasing the amount and range of products and services.
If technological progress does not do that, and instead makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, the problem isn't technological progress, but the system in which it is applied.
So what I'm saying is this: AI isn't the problem. AI replacing employees isn't the problem. The problem is that with a class divide into investors and workers, the ones profiting the most from technological progress are the investors.
Technological progress shouldn't reduce the amount of work required to do tasks. It should reduce the amount of people that have to do work they don't enjoy, or increase the quality of living overall by reducing the cost of certain tasks/items.
For example, it shouldn't try to make redundant the work of artists that enjoy making art, or hobbyists that enjoy writing code. If there is too much demand for these services, then technology can be used to compensate for the part that these work enjoying people can't provide, but technology shouldn't make their work redundant.
Are you saying societal asymmetry is a social problem, not a technical one?
yup
The Big fear that a lot of people have with AI isn't the technology itself moreseo the fact that its advancements are likely to lead to a even more disproportionate distribution of wealth
Capitalism is working as intended. Support ticket closed.
If it didn't they would be legislating against it.
...and no remote work! Office real estate will loose it's value banks become sad.
losing money on risky bets is for those to small to bailout.
Displacing millions of workers
I have seen what AI outputs at an industrial scale, and I invite you to replace me with it while I sit back and laugh.
my company announced today that they were going to start a phased rollout where AI would provide first responses to tickets, with it initially being "reviewed" by humans with the eventual goal being it just sending responses unsupervised. The strength of my "OH HELL NO" derailed the entire meeting for a solid 15 minutes lmao
It's not about entirely replacing people. It's about reducing the number of people you hire in a specific role because each of those people can do more using AI. Which would still displace millions of people as companies get rid of the lowest performing of their workers to make their bottom line better.
It’s not about entirely replacing people
Tell yourself that all you wish. Then maybe go see this thread about Spotify laying off 1500 people and having a bit of a rough go with it. If they could they would try to replace every salaried/contracted human with AI.
I'm more afraid of the flood of AI Generated CSAM and the countless people affected by non-consensual porn.
Careful with that thinking.. I just called a pedo for that.
AI isn't on track to displace millions of jobs. Most of the automation we're seeing was already possible with existing technology but AI is being slapped on as a buzzword to sell it to the press/executives.
The trend is going the way of NFTs/Blockchain where the revolutionary "everything is going to be changed" theatrical rhetoric meets reality, where it might complement existing technologies but otherwise isn't that useful on its own.
In programming, we went from "AI will replace everyone!!!" to "AI is a complementary tool for programmers but requires too much handholding to completely replace a trained and educated software engineer when maintaining and expanding software systems". The same will follow for other industries, too.
Not to say it's not troubling, but as long as capitalism and wage labour exists, fundamentally we cannot even imagine a technology to totally negate human labour, because without human labour the system would have to contemplate negating fundamental pillars of capital accumulation.
We fundamentally don't have the language to describe systems that can holistically automate human labour.
What are you saying? That people without jobs aren't treated well?
Am I OOL on something or are we calling CSAM and nonconsentual porn "erotic roleplay" now?
If you classify erotic roleplay as CSAM, then there is a whole sprawling community called DDLG that belongs on the sex offenders registry.
Noncon is similarly a much more prevalent fetish than people think.
The only difference between this debate and the traditional porn counterpart is that traditional video porn has always had actors who are verifiably of-age and consenting, despite whatever the roleplay may imply. With drawn and written erotica, there is no actor, it's all text coming from imagination and how you interpret it is a function of both the reader's and author's imagination. What it depicts means virtually nothing and outlawing it means making it a thoughtcrime, which is a Pandora's box you do not want opened.
I think you misunderstood...the only AI porn I've heard anyone make a stink about is AI CSAM and deep fakes of celebrities or, again, children. I don't care about consenting adults pretending to be younger or nonconsent play.
Making realistic AI porn of people without their consent isn't ok. Normalizing CSAM or making it harder to find and prosecute real CSAM producers isn't ok either. Making AI porn using the likeness of real children isn't ok. Those are the only complaints I've heard on the topic, and I agree with them. If there's other things people are screaming about, I'm OOL, which was the question I originally asked.
Nobody was talking about either of those things until you came along. Why are they on your mind? Why do you immediately think of children being molested when you hear the word erotic?
look up
The sky is falling?
