Here in the USA, you have to be afraid for your job these days. Layoffs are rampant everywhere due to outsourcing, and now we have AI on the horizon promising to make things more efficient, but we really know what it is actually going to be used for. They want automate out everything. People packaging up goods for shipping, white collar jobs like analytics, business intelligence, customer service, chat support. Any sort of job that takes a low or moderate amount of effort or intellectual ability is threatened by AI. But once AI takes all these jobs away and shrinks the amount of labor required, what are all these people going to do for work? It’s not like you can train someone who’s a business intelligence engineer easily to go do something else like HVAC, or be a nurse. So you have the entire tech industry basically folding in on itself trying to win the rat race and get the few remaining jobs left over…

But it should be pretty obvious that you can’t run an entire society with no jobs. Because then people can’t buy groceries, groceries don’t sell so grocery stores start hurting and then they can’t afford to employ cashiers and stockers, and the entire thing starts crumbling. This is the future of AI, basically. The more we automate, the less people can do, so they don’t have jobs and no income, not able to survive…

Like, how long until we realize how detrimental AI is to society? 10 years? 15?

  • enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    20 days ago

    Replace AI in your argument with industrial machinery, and you’ll get your answer. People have always had similar concerns about automation. There are some problems, but it isn’t with the technology itself.

    The first problem is the concentration of wealth. Societal automation efforts need to start to be viewed as something belonging to everyone, and the profits generated need to go back in to supporting society. This’ll need to be solved to move forward peacefully.

    The second problem is failure to deal with externalities. The true cost of automation needs to be accounted for from cradle to grave including all externalities. This means the pollution caused by LLM energy use needs to be a part of the cost of running the LLM, for example.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    20 days ago

    You may be in the younger side, or just not remember, but this happens almost every 20 years like clockwork.

    In the 80’s it was the PC and computers at large.

    In the 00’s it was robotic automation that was going to be the end of manual labor.

    Now it’s this.

    The sooner people realize that all of things are just about the small number of wealthy people who control resources making more money at the expense of the majority of all other humans, maybe something will get done. It’s been tried before in various movements with little to show for it, but maybe I’m just cynical.

    There will need to be a major shift in how economic flow works in order to support an existing or expanding population regardless.

  • kameecoding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 days ago

    Society can exist without jobs, not everything has to be capital, in fact reaching a post scarcity world is needed for communism.

    AI hype is also overblown as fuck, I remember watching the CGP grey video Humans Need not Apply, like what, 8 years ago? Haven’t really achieved some epic breakthrough did we?

    For me from a software engineers perspective, “AI” is nothing but a productivity tool, it reduces the amount of mundane work I have to do, but then so does the IDE I use.

    as humans we have been automatic tasks for a long time, just think about your washing machine, you have any idea how hard it would be to have clean clothes without them? Do you think we would be better off if we needed cleaning services that clean our clothes for us using human labour just so people have jobs? Or is it better to use that effort elsewhere?

    • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 days ago

      This is the part of the AI conversation that always bugs me. People have just concluded that the hype is real and we’ve reached the point that people fear in movies. They don’t understand that it’s mostly bullshit. Sure, the fancy autocomplete can toss up some boilerplate code and it’s mostly ok. Sure, it saves me time scrolling through StackOverflow search results.

      But it’s simply not this all-knowing miracle replacement for everything. I think everyone has been conditioned by entertainment to fear the worst. When that bubble bursts, IT will be the part which wreaks havoc on the economy.

    • liquefy4931@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      “AI” returns mathematically plausible results from its tokenized training data. That is the ONLY thing it does. It doesn’t consider, it doesn’t fact check itself. “AI” in its current state is a party trick.

      • SolNine@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        It’s saving me a hell of a lot of man hours on incredibly tedious tasks that would require looking up individual items in a wiki or the like and then directly populating the answers into a spreadsheet… Our team doesn’t have the budget to hire someone to do it, so it basically just wouldn’t get done without it.

        Useful party trick for me!

      • liquefy4931@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        Just to be clear, I’m not saying it isn’t useful, I’m just tired of hearing people say that the code “thinks”.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        They’re starting to add options to cite references, consult documentation, some of the engines actually check their source code to make sure it’s viable.

        Now that they’ve hit stumbling blocks on organically improving, all those things you’re talking about can be done with conventional techniques.

      • locuester@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Your last sentence diminishes the value of the first sentence. These LLMs save me a ton of time and massively increase my productivity.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    I can answer that. We won’t.

    We’ll keep iterating and redesigning until we have actual working general intelligence AI. Once we’ve created a general intelligence it will be a matter of months or years before it’s a super intelligence that far outshines human capabilities. Then you have a whole new set of dilemmas. We’ll struggle with those ethical and social dilemmas for some amount of time until the situation flips and the real ethical dilemmas will be shouldered by the AIs: how long do we keep these humans around? Do we let them continue to go to war with each other? do they own this planet? Etc.

  • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    What do you think happened to building full of engineers designing plans and making stress load calculations? What do you think happened to switchboard operators?

      • unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        That’s already been going to the wrong people for decades now.

        The least drastic solution would be something like UBI, where a lot of people would be miserable, but at least will be able to put food on the table. (In case you’ve seen The Expanse series, I imagine that something like the part where Bobbie asks for directions on Earth).

        A more drastic solution would be to not tie the worth of people to the amount of work they do or the amount of wealth they have.

        • kubica@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          I don’t disagree with most things. But I don’t think the celebration of not having a job muddles a bit the point. I don’t see a viable future if everyone does the same.

          • unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            I see you point; but not even 200 years ago the people couldn’t imagine most people working in other “industries” than agriculture.

            Historically, most people worked in agriculture. (I’m not sure of the percentage, but it was >80% IIRC, but we can take a low estimate at 50%).

            Nowadays less than 5% of the world population works in agriculture, due to increases in automation (machinery that can plow and harvest), and better understanding of the process (more efficient use of land).

            While some of that turned out to be bad for the environment (who knew biodiversity is good, actually?), it did free up most of the population to do other things.

            I hope it’s not “AI” that will automate the future (because of the huge energy costs to the environment), but automation more generally could help us free more time for passionate pursuits.

            Jobs like software engineer didn’t even exist a century ago, and who knows what kind of new jobs will be created in the next 100?

            • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              16 days ago

              I’m also an engineer and I read this as… agriculture is a house of cards, any fuckup and we’re all dead. Thanks AI and automation!

  • otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    People had the same fears about cars, the internet, computers, telephones, the printing press, and even just books and reading/writing.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      Energy demands are only going to increase as we replace gas with electric alternatives. The problem you’re pointing to is an issue with the current infrastructure.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 days ago

          No, in this case I’m referring to the electric grid and what powers it.

            • Ech@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              18 days ago

              You’re missing or ignoring my point. If the energy is provided by carbon neutral sources, then the amount used is irrelevant. That should be our goal. And I don’t know where you’re getting the notion that water resources are " boiled dry" or that gpu heat has any meaningful impact on the climate, but those aren’t actual issues.

              And for the record, I’m not defending LLMs or generative images here. That bubble would be better off bursting, but the energy use isn’t why. Hell, it may be the only good aspect of the whole thing. With MS booting up old nuclear reactors, maybe it will revitalize interest so can make some use of that technology.

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    19 days ago

    Is AI really only detrimental to society? We’re in the initial stages where they promise the world in order to get investors attention. But once the investors realize what it’s actually capable of they’ll have to focus on what it’s actually capable of.

    I think sometime next year we’ll have a crash, and all the companies pushing AI will be forced to either focus on quality, or find the next thing to push.

  • undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 days ago

    At some point society will need to realize that traditional work that is handled by automation (whether AI or not) isn’t necessary and economic systems will have to change.

    I’m not an expert by any means, and I just don’t see this happening in the near-term. My opinion is that for now (the short-term at least) it’ll just widen the gap between rich and poor.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Yeah, industrialization didn’t end the world and complete automation won’t either unless we decide to roll over and die instead of changing things so people benefit from the automation instead of suffering because of it.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    19 days ago

    Not AI TV’s with Bluetooth connection to your phone! Those will be totally fine! Go ahead and say things about Trump and then go to Amazon and search for the grass trimmer you love. Go ahead and talk about the truck you like or the computer ram you need. So you work for Costco? Hmmm tells us more? Are you at the executive level? You wouldn’t be a purchaser maybe 🤔? Or what?

  • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 days ago

    I think social media provides a good reference to start speculating an answer to your question.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      Look at all the beneficial change that realization has brought on too!

      Realizing this doesn’t mean anything is going to happen.