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?

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    For now, I work in AI.

    IMO, using AI to remove jobs is the business equivalent of the Darwin Award. No sane executive will look at AI and see job replacement. A dumb executive will look at AI and see more productivity gains. A smart executive will see AI as a way to improve tooling for workers that explicitly want to use AI.

    Sadly, as with most tech improvements, we’ll see lots of companies run by stupid people try to do stupid things with it. The best we can hope for is that there are opportunities for people to bail and find better job opportunities when their employer says “let’s fire HR and replace with GPT”, only to get absolutely brutalized by legal fees when their AI HR decides to fire someone for a protected reason, or refuses to fire a thief because they have a disability, or something that requires human intervention that doesn’t exist, or one of the hundreds of ways that it could go hilariously wrong.

    It happens all the time. I remember watching solid profitable tech companies pivoting to delivering large apps on the new iPhone app store because “it’s the future”, only to realise that spending two years to develop an office suite for the iPhone 4 was a fucking stupid idea in hindsight. I remember people firing web developers because WYSIWYG editors would mean that you could design and build a website in the same way you create a Word doc. Stupid execs will always do stupid shit, and the world will move on.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yup.

      Some guys I know who worked at a developer contracting house (that I briefly worked for as well) all lost their jobs over the course of a year or so, as the company started rapidly downsizing because “Copilot means we don’t need as many developers anymore, we can fill orders with a skeleton crew.”

      I’m excited to see that company fail for their bullshit.

  • kameecoding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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?

    • liquefy4931@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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
        1
        ·
        3 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!

  • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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?

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Technology like the loom, the steam shovel, the aeroplane, rocketry, computers, nuclear energy, the internet, and now AI, are each tools that have really changed our world, and put many different people out of work, but it has also reduced a lot of back-breaking, time-consuming work, so it has allowed our world to go a lot faster. From an excavator being able to move a lot more dirt in a day than 5 men with shovels, AI can help with getting the initial ideas of the creative process, can help with parsing initial queries from customers, a first pass filter of a huge repository of legal documents, be a patient teacher for beginner programming or other subjects, and so on. Each tool can have been overpromised to do everything, but that doesn’t mean it had no purpose.

    With that said, any of these tools and technologies can be used for bad as much as they can be used for good. And combatting that doesn’t just mean waiting around hoping for the people entrenched in power using tech to satiate their own personal gain, to suddenly reject their gains to commit them for the good of society. It means organizing to protect your neighbour. It means sharing the benefit of these tools with others, using them for good, and improving them for others.

    My point is that it’s not AI that will cause society to crash, it’s greed and corporate greed, who are being assisted by the unrealistic hype over AI.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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.

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Assuming we can get AGI. So far there’s been little proof we’re any closer to getting an AI that can actually apply logic to problems that aren’t popular enough to be spelled out a dozen times in the dataset it’s trained on. Ya know, the whole perfect scores on well known and respected collage tests, but failing to solve slightly altered riddles for children? It being literally incapable of learning new concepts is a pretty major pitfall if you ask me.

      I’m really sick and tired of this “we just gotta make a machine that can learn and then we can teach it anything” line. It’s nothing new, people were saying this shit since fucking 1950 when Alan Turing wrote it in a paper. A machine looking at an unholy amount of text and evaluation based on a new prompt, what is the most likely word to follow, IS NOT LEARNING!!! I was sick of this dilema before LLMs were a thing, but now it’s just mind numbing.

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

        AI developers are like the modern version of alchemists. If they can just turn this lead into gold, this one simple task, they’ll be rich and powerful for the rest of their lives!

        Transmutation isn’t really possible, not the way they were trying to do it. Perhaps AI isn’t possible the way we’re trying to do it now, but I doubt that will stop many people from trying. And I do expect that it will be possible somehow, we’ll likely get there someday, just not soon.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 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.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 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?

  • _bcron_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The whole planet is threatened by AI. If you look at the amount of energy needed not only to power the infrastructure, but the energy needed to create the infrastructure, and compare it to the work produced, and the energy needed for humans to produce equivalent work, it’s totally fucked and dumb as hell

    Edit: to elaborate, there was this commercial for a Google Pixel I saw, people in group chat talking about a football game, person says “create an image of football gloves made out of butter”. .08kWh later that image gets posted in chat for a chuckle. Dude, just say “gloves made of butter? smdh” Lady laying in bed talking to a glorified chatbot, just hop on Lemmy or reconnect with an old friend and save .16kWh. These are the most common use cases for AI, basically finessing a prompt a dozen times to make a Shrek and Garlfield comic that winds up in some Facebook group with 9 likes. Multiply those figures a couple million times tho and it’s like holy shit. We somehow went from extremely low-bandwidth words to high bandwidth Youtube and Tiktok to the messiest bullshit humans have ever invented, to do things we could easily do with characters on a keyboard

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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.

      • _bcron_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Infrastructure in this case refers to the data centers and LLMs. It takes hundreds of megawatt hours to train a single current-gen LLM and who knows how many gigawatts of energy are being consumed by the sum of LLMs at any given point but it likely dwarfs the sum of all energy spent training LLMs.

        But then there’s the energy involved in producing those cards, shipping those cards, the data centers themselves.

        It wouldn’t be preposterous to suggest that the sum of energy spent at any given time on generative AI is enough to power New York City. Might even be well more than

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

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

          • _bcron_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yeah and the problem I’m pointing to has nothing to with electrical infrastructure and instead the sheer amount of energy wasted on bullshit.

            You could have fantastic electrical infrastructure but if people are consuming literal gigawatt hours and boiling municipal water dry making Garfield and Shrek comics, that’s the problem. Where does this energy come from? How is the copious amount of heat dealth with? Those are the corollaries

            It’s seriously the biggest waste of energy in human existence and it’s staring at you right in the face. Gotta be blind to miss it

            • Ech@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 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.

              • _bcron_@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Energy is zero sum. If you’re throwing away carbon neutral energy you could instead use that energy to displace consumption of energy that would otherwise be produced by coal or whatnot.

                Furthermore, many of these data centers use evaporative cooling as opposed to a sealed system and water indeed goes right out and into the atmosphere. There are limitless articles discussing this and the footprint

                Edit: I should add that the whole zero sum aspect of energy is why things that ‘scrub carbon’ are a pipe dream. That stuff often requires so much energy to produce that, even if it were made from solar or whatever, there’s always a more positive impact simply by taking that energy and using it to reduce energy production that emits all the carbon in the first place. Consumption is still the crux of the problem at this point and to look at anything that requires gobs of energy and uses clean energy as some insular thing that is separate from things that use dirty energy is not a good way to look at things

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

    People simultaneously seem scared of AI automating jobs, and of there being too many old people for the young people to look after as they’d be too busy with their jobs. Wouldn’t those cancel each other out?

    • DuckWrangler9000@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      there being too many old people for the young people to look after as they’d be too busy with their jobs

      When your entire society revolves around working for a salary or for getting paid, that’s why you can’t take care of the old people. Now suppose AI automates a lot of stuff and we have time for taking care of older people… How are we supposed to do that without jobs? That’s the problem

  • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    now we have AI on the horizon promising to make things more efficient

    sounds good

    but we really know what it is actually going to be used for

    Contradicts the first statement and the next statement

    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.

    OK you do know what they want to use it for.

    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.

    Highly untrainable people have always existed and are always the first to get replaced.

    But it should be pretty obvious that you can’t run an entire society with no jobs.

    Well not one based on capitalism.

    The more we automate, the less people can do, so they don’t have jobs and no income, not able to survive…

    Well the ones that can’t do research and can’t look up history maybe. AI is the new Robots, is the new assembly line is the new…

    You are just using the age old technology fear narrative.

    When Robots Take All of Our Jobs, Remember the Luddites (2017)

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The 12 year old video below explains the root cause of economic misery. Technology is a tool that can be used for good or evil. But the ruling class wants ALL the money. So technology is often used for more efficient oppression.

    Meanwhile, we working class folks are too busy working and/or distracted (often fighting with each other) to mount any real resistance.

    https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

  • ABCDE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    they can’t afford to employ cashiers

    They’ve already removed most of the ones in the UK, it seems. Really worrying stuff when you realise how much they crept in during covid.

  • pr06lefs@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Right now there’s a huge arms race between the big companies looking to be first in harvesting immense profits. The hype train is rolling, to attract business and investment.

    If it becomes clear that its not profitable and won’t become profitable, then the sudden revelations will come.