• June@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It will absolutely be a net positive for everyone above a certain socio-economic threshold. It will also leave everyone below that threshold behind, but it will be a minority of people who, I suspect, will be largely made up of minorities and already marginalized people increasing the divide. But history will look back kindly regardless. Because that’s how history works.

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      A minority? Advancements in AI could lead to extensive automation in the service industries and desk jobs everywhere, which is what makes up for most of the jobs today.

      If history will look back kindly, it’s mostly for the whole “written by the victors”, but what that will mean for us living through it might be very different. With people already struggling with costs of living, I wouldn’t put most people in the threshold of a net positive outcome. Not unless drastic sociopolitical changes take place, at the very least.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It depends.

        It could fizzle out a bit, harsh reality is that there are limitations, and those limitations are not trivial to push beyond. For example here they said the results were obviously bad, and the Spanish readers would switch to read English instead.

        It could free up opportunities for sorts of work we couldn’t previously have done and keep folks utilized.

        We may run out of ambitions and end up with a glut of time and resources and give everyone better quality of living with less time lost to labor.

        We may end up with a dystopia of people arbitrarily in the winning side enjoy a paradise and the rest suffer or rise up in desperation.

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

          I’m looking at it from an angle of someone who sees the fuctional potential of the technology while being wary of the social repercussions. It may not cut it for now, but it’s very possible that in a few years it will be passable enough for most low level work, and as much as may think little of that, there are always far more people employed in low level positions than higher ones.

          It could free up opportunities for sorts of work we couldn’t previously have done and keep folks utilized.

          What exactly?

          This is an issue I see with the attitudes around it, this assumption that because previous technological advancements opened new opportunities, that this will be the same. What is not being considered is that this one is already primed to swallow those very same recent opportunities that were opened to us. There’s already projects for coding AI, even. It’s already approaching human-level capabilities.

          Even if I try in good faith to imagine such a future, there is still the matter that, even if someone could start their own AI tech blog, their own AI art career, it doesn’t mean there will be demand for that, especially because, assuming a capable AI, any single AI production will be far more productive. There will be less need for creatives behind AI. The needs of AI research will not need anywhere as many people as AI displaces either.

          Even calling it “opportunities” seems like the wrong connotation because this is likely to displace people from careers that they were already passionate about. Even given a chance, many artists don’t want to move into creating AI art, they want to make their own art. This is not freeing them, it’s taking what they love away from them.

          Ultimately, what is it that will make up for it? Are we just going to trust that something will show up, without any idea of what it is? Sounds unreliable. As much as you trust that because history turned out fine before it will again, I can’t be reassured so easily. It turned out fine because humans had intellectual capabilities that early machinery couldn’t handle. What if most people are left with nothing to move to. I don’t trust history to play out the same, but I worry about something of it still. The early days of the Industrial Revolution had horrible exploitation and grueling working conditions. I dread to think what would be of the world if most people are left that desperate again.

          The only way to prevent that would be a strong popular movement. Technology won’t guarantee us a thriving future or we would have gotten that already. But united people can do it.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s why I speculated different scenarios, we have to prepare for things to go various directions.

            There’s a chance that possibilities I can’t imagine pop up. I suspect my imagination would have been too limited to see modern jobs if I lived in pre industrial times.

            It’s possible we ultimately run out of new stuff to do. Hopefully we can find a path to increase leisure rather than pointlessly keep people doing tedious work that we could automate because we couldn’t think of a better system. There’s tough issues around how to do it at all, and tougher, how to do it fairly.

            If we get to such a future, I’d want to see reduction in hours worked per person, or some decoupling of livelihood from working. Way easier said than done though…