Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ttylyl OP t1_j7423k5 wrote

Reply to comment by visarga in Future of The Lower and Middle Class Post-Singularity, and Why You Should Worry. by ttylyl

This is true, but simple things can be handled by ai alone. And huge portions of are economy are simple enough it can do it alone. It is far, far cheaper to pay for AI than to pay for a human.

1

visarga t1_j742w3h wrote

Yes, it doesn't make sense to put humans do things that AI can do better. But the competition will use humans-with-AI to extract 2x from the AI, while you're using AI-alone at 1x rate. Everyone will have the same AI from Microsoft and Google, but humans are limited.

1

ttylyl OP t1_j743d4h wrote

I agree, but you could compensate rather easily by simply paying for 2x AI for 1/100th the cost of one human and one AI.

I agree that skilled jobs will be humans and AI together, but unskilled labor is called that for a reason, they aren’t focused on the quality, but the quantity.

1

visarga t1_j744swb wrote

If you put Stable Diffusion or chatGPT to generate automatically without human review or prompting, they will generate tons of garbage. Generative AIs are garbage until someone stamps their work as good. So they need humans to be worth anything. They are just junk on their own. It's a long way off from job replacement - even self driving cars require human at the wheel. These AIs still hallucinate facts, who can use them as they are now. Clearly someone will have to find a way before they can get useful without being babysitted.

1

ttylyl OP t1_j745ggc wrote

Yes ai needs trainers, but 1000 trainers can make a simple but concise model that replaces 500,000 jobs, call centers are an easy example. And then they have to make another model that takes more jobs if they want to keep theirs.

The new jobs from the AI market won’t match the jobs lost from AI replacement. Think about it this way, a company wouldn’t new tech unless it saves them money right?

1