Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner. If you can employ an AI "employee" for $50 per month that works 24/7, the AI can be pretty lousy while still being totally worth it. People that know how to properly apply this new tool are going to be valuable and sought after - a new career option that didn't exist 5 years ago.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner. If you can employ an AI "employee" for $50 per month that works 24/7, the AI can be pretty lousy while still being totally worth it. People that know how to properly apply this new tool are going to be valuable and sought after - a new career option that didn't exist 5 years ago.

The whole appeal of AI to large corporations is that it facilitates the elimination of salaried workers, how can someone enthusiastically "apply" a technology designed to eliminate enthusiastic technologists?

Do you believe that AI is a way to improve the human condition? sooner or later you'll reach out to something and find the people are gone, AI will decide when and if you see a doctor, AI will screen Police 911 calls, AI will decide the school curriculum...

Put yourself in the shoes of a worker, who studied and got an education and is now facing the grim reality, burger flipping - both US parties support big investors, neither Democrat nor Republican represent the needs or concerns of like 95% of the people who vote for them.

This is comparable to the Russian revolution.

 

Right now I would rate chatgpt or any other LLM at best a 1/2 decent assistant. They can find things very fast do a lot of research grunt work for you leaving you still with a list of articles and papers to read. I hear it does code fairly fast. How good that code is I can't say I steer away from code if I can but if I must I can just not well.

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-help-openai-infringe-copyrights-nyt-alleged/

For the NYT, outputs shared during discovery—including a huge chunk of users’ ChatGPT sessions—remain some of the strongest evidence that OpenAI and Microsoft built tools that allegedly replaced the NYT by producing near-verbatim excerpts of its copyrighted works.

In some cases, users told ChatGPT they were trying to skirt paywalls and were able to see significant chunks of articles by requesting to see the “next paragraph.” In other cases, “models simply spit out several paragraphs” without such finagling. To prove market harms caused by substitution, they shared examples in their complaints of side-by-side comparisons, as well as screenshots of allegedly infringing outputs:
...
Microsoft and OpenAI are hoping that the court will agree that training AI on NYT articles is fair use. In a statement provided to Ars, OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri reiterated the AI firm’s often-repeated claims that AI training on copyrighted works is indisputably fair use.

“Our models empower innovation, are trained on publicly available data, and are grounded in fair use,” Pusateri said.
But the NYT likely expects that its evidence of substitution is strong, and that might not bode well for the tech firms it’s suing. Notably, one of the earliest verdicts finding that AI training was fair use was explicitly granted due to the plaintiffs’ failure to prove market harms. Last June, a federal judge laid out what he thinks could be a winning argument against AI training on copyrighted works, suggesting that the fair use question is far from answered.

In this case, OpenAI has argued that “ChatGPT is not a substitute for a Times subscription,” the NYT reported, partly because “they transformed the material for a different use.”

But if NYT manages to convince the court that the ChatGPT use is not so different from the newspaper’s, the most extreme outcome could require OpenAI and Microsoft to wipe models and start over.

 

The problem, IMHO, is not the jobs that AI is beginning to replace/displace. But rather that the change is happening too fast for the market to adapt without it being significantly disrupted.

 

Perhaps we need the return of the Luddites against AI.

 

The problem, IMHO, is not the jobs that AI is beginning to replace/displace. But rather that the change is happening too fast for the market to adapt without it being significantly disrupted.

As has happened numerous times before. As will happen numerous times in future.

It's an easy trap to see today's change as being unprecedented and catastrophic. Yet fifty or a hundred years from now, the changes that history will record as being unprecedented and catastrophic will, like almost all such ones we look back on currently, be the ones that are going virtually unnoticed while they are happening.