• XTL
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Which is all bs. Why should unnecessary jobs exist?

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure. Except the wealth and productivity increases will not benefit society but the few wealthy capitalists that own it

      • Nevoic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We have 3 paths forward:

        • liberal capitalist solution (à la Tucker Carlson): ban AI and allow workers to do bullshit jobs
        • alternative liberal capitalist solution: let excess workers die in the streets because they’re no longer needed for production
        • socialist solution: distribute the means of production (AI in this case) so we can share equitably in its output

        I’d advocate for the socialist one, it sounds like you might be more in line with Tucker Carlson’s thinking here?

        • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not at all. I support, from your options, the socialist solution.

          AI should free people to do other things. It should benefit the people - if AI can automate 50% of all jobs, rather than just throwing all of those people to the street, we should expect to have to work less without a reduction in income. Thats AI benefiting society. Instead, that 50% reduction in labour and costs just fills the pockets of CEOs and shareholders, without any care for people now out of work.

          Also - fuck carlson. guy is a cunt

        • Synthead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a black and white fallacy and a loaded question. There are more options, blends of options, and circumstances that make different options better for some groups. The two first options are also “bullshit” or “dying,” which doesn’t give the party making a decision a rational choice.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          One nice thing about the “alternative liberal capitalist solution” is that it morphs into the “socialist solution” when the excess workers eat the wealthy AI owners. Hopefully they’ll realize this and choose the more graceful exit that at least leaves them with some of their wealth.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everything benefits wealthy capitalists that own everything. The solution is not to keep people in shitty jobs.

      • Bjornir@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I absolutely agree, but it isn’t an issue with automation in itself, but rather the political system that doesn’t allow to correct that issue.

    • meat_popsicle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “We had authors and artists, but AI is so much more efficient they’re unnecessary.”

      LLMs are coming for artistic and creative functions first. Is human creativity and artistry unnecessary?

      Historically automation was on rote/repetitive tasks. This is a bit different.

      • effingjoe@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Historically automation was on rote/repetitive tasks. This is a bit different.

        “Historically” it did, but only because those were easiest to automate, however this LLM stuff is really not any different. It turns out that human creativity is pretty easy to convincingly fake with software. I don’t really believe this is the end of human art, but it might be the end of human work-for-hire art.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the LLMs are capable of filling the economic role that human artists filled, then yes, human creativity becomes “unnecessary.” But so what? We do plenty of unnecessary things for fun. We have machines that can transport us around or that can show us images of pretty forests and yet we still go on hikes. We could build machines that shoot baseballs at whatever velocity we want and with extreme accuracy, but we still play baseball.

        It used to be that an evening’s entertainment required actors on a stage. They mostly got replaced by movie projectors. For a while the movie cinema would have live musicians playing accompaniment to the silent film, but then recorded music replaced those too. In neither case did humanity lose its soul or whatever. The artistry just moved to other niches or continued on as a hobby.