cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/2811405
"We view this moment of hype around generative AI as dangerous. There is a pack mentality in rushing to invest in these tools, while overlooking the fact that they threaten workers and impact consumers by creating lesser quality products and allowing more erroneous outputs. For example, earlier this year America’s National Eating Disorders Association fired helpline workers and attempted to replace them with a chatbot. The bot was then shut down after its responses actively encouraged disordered eating behaviors. "
I’m five times better at my job thanks to AI. My life is better. I’m happier. I’m earning more.
So, yeah, fuck these articles. They’re clearly written by people who don’t understand it for people who can’t use it. “John replaced walking with a car and ran over a dog, so cars are useless and bad.”
That said, the less competitors that use it, the better for me.
Your point is valid, but it lacks the empathy for all the people who are displaced. In our society, displaced people are not given help to find a new place.
When a skilled worker is displaced, and can no longer find work in their skills, their choices are to spend a huge amount of money to go back to college or trade school to get new skills or be forever lost in low-income jobs.
Going from $100,000 per year to $40,000 per year overnight is devastating.
The trick is not to say it outloud, otherwise you set a standard for others in the eyes of bosses and they’d think it should be paid less for the same amount of work. Those who can’t adapt become less valued and you don’t benefit that much from that either. When it’s all about wage, it’s better to free your time to work on your own projects or work half-time on remote before your higher ups know, or even some colleagues of a snitchy variety. That’s what the lack of unions does.
Fortunately, I’m a sole practising lawyer. So the results speak for themselves. Nobody cares how you crafted 100 pages of written argument. The court is only concerned whether it’s persuasive and accurately represents the applicable legal principles. It’s hard work to make sure gpt-4 isn’t confused, but that’s a skill one develops over time.
That’s a good case, right, including their formulated nature and distinct language.
“The technology is currently flawed. Therefore we should not invest resources in making it better.” Odd approach.
Frankly, even if the “quality” is poor, the quantity is actually a significant boon. I can have content that actually caters to my interests rather than just whatever the big studios decide I’m going to get to pick from. I can make it myself, if I want. Even with the relatively crude tools we already have.
For example, I do game-mastering for TTRPGs, and ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion have vastly improved the quality and quantity of material I’m able to present to my players. I can lavishly illustrate my adventures. The images aren’t as good as a professional artist would make, but given that I would never have hired a professional artist in the first place and even if I did they wouldn’t have been able to churn those images out in time for tomorrow’s session, that’s still a huge improvement.
IMO, AI won’t replace you, a person using will. AI does really help you make your job easier, but you still have to do the work. There ain’t no easy jobs
Exactly. It doesn’t do your job, it helps you do your job better. But apparently that’s a bad thing?
