Fair points, thanks. The 24h framing is just an illustration, not a claim that ML is new; calculators and decades of ML are part of the same curve. We're a small, openly AI-assisted outlet and we'll keep posts here more substantive.

I want to point out that a calculator automates cognitive tasks.

• AI would arrive 0.13 seconds before midnight: who cares?
• confidently wrong, but it automates cognitive tasks: lol
• is the acceleration real: what acceleration?
• cognenza@lemmy.world: new account, no comments, spam

Also ML learning has existed for 2 decades. The under lining principles long that that.

We did the maths

You and a chatbot?

You have fundamental misunderstandings with the premise, and your chatbotndoesnt know anything so it can't explain it to you.

The result is you didn't just waste your own time, you burnt down some of our environment in the process.

Come up with these ideas on your own, if you burn the planet down with AI, most people won't spend the time explaining what you're not understanding,because chances are you're just going to reply with whatever your chat bot tells you to.

Just be wrong as a human, and hope another human takes pity and tries to explain.

No one that understands this want's to have a discussion with your chat bot to train the chatbot.

this will hold true for ai gen art as well

there are still people making cloth by hand, though. They're able to do it because there are others willing to pay a premium for handmade goods or simply because they have their needs met and are thus free to do it without worrying about profit.

The same logic extends to basically anything, the only thing holding us back from having people do work is that we as a society have decided that it's ok for a few people to exploit everyone else and keep resources out of our hands.
We more than have the technology to live in what for all intents and purposes is a post-scarcity world.

I think one company recently realized why AI won't work as great as they expect it to. It's expensive! It costs more than current employees. On top of that companies are handing over power to other companies who control the AI they implement. So the company loses lower wage people and control of elements of their own company, not to mention if the AI is used to talk with the customer they hate it and can lead to worse service which lowers the brands name. The last part is if it's expensive now it will only continue to get more expensive not lower. Thats just not how businesses work. So that contract they signed today will most likely put a clause of 5% yearly annual increase and when the contract is up it also will most likely cost more upon renewal. So they no longer have the choice to stiff employees each year by saying sorry no raises. Idk how companies can justify this expense over an ectual employee.

It all depends on how you package it, unfortunately...

I agree with you, that's a significant negative. Though it's as much on us as a society as anything else that we aren't valuing and preserving those books properly to begin with.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/worlds-largest-open-library-calls-for-volunteers-to-scan-and-preserve-physical-books-as-ai-companies-buy-scan-and-destroy-them-annas-archive-says-time-is-running-out-as-knowledge-is-permanently-monopolized-on-private-servers

Silver lining, it's prompting a speed up in digitisation.

My original comment wasn't about defending AI or its (lack of) ethics, though. Just recognising that AI is likely here to stay, and that we should be moving the discussion to dealing with the societal impact it brings instead of spending our energy tilting at windmills while the assholes in charge widen the wealth gap even further.

things like this.

Where they’re taking old books, which have a finite quantity to them, scanning the information, and destroying the books. That is literally destruction of information, and en masse, destroys what we have collectively gained in knowledge as a civilization. Because at the end of all of this, only a handful of people will truly have access to it. What the rest of us will see is what they will allow. And as it stands, I do not trust the current curators. I do not support the destruction or limiting of information.

destruction of humanities culmination

That's definitely a big if, I'm not even sure what that means, much less that it's true.

Regarding intellectual pillaging, that depends on your opinion of it. I'm of the viewpoint that it's no significantly different from any human learning from the works of those that came before. Also not a fan of copyright as it exists, so...

There’s a big IF at the end of what you quoted. I’m not anti AI in its inevitability. But there’s a very real cost to creating it. And soon to be a steep barrier to entry to that knowledge, or at least the parts they’ll show you.

It shouldn’t have begun in the first place

I kind of disagree, but that's also an entirely different discussion.

even if this does not happen we should just get ubi and universal healthcare going just as a prophylatic. one side is really against prophylactics though.

It shouldn’t have begun in the first place if the technology is built on intellectual pillaging and destruction of humanities culmination. That’s the bigger crime.

Does anybody realistically think AI use will stop worldwide because of that? Best case scenario I can see happening is some sort of compensation.

They should be focusing on the important stuff, what happens AFTER jobs are eliminated?

How about the massive theft of art, thoughts, and data?

sadly he’s right

see how machines ending weaving and cloth making

The people resisting AI because jobs will be lost are fighting a losing battle. There's never been a case in history where we decided not to adopt a new technology because some people would lose their jobs. From a historical perspective, it's not even the wrong decision for humanity.

They should be focusing on the important stuff, what happens AFTER jobs are eliminated? I personally prefer UBI, and the increase of leisure time, but there's plenty of other options and we should be making sure we discuss the right ones.

The only jobs that will end are whatever this guy considers work is, not sure how he thinks AI is going to be able to handle the "boozy lunch" component, but pretty sure it's already got "talking gibberish to other over paid idiots" down pat

I have a novel idea. Requalify people whose jobs are automated, redistribute the efficiency gains equitably, and reduce everyone's working time.

Or maybe fuck around, cancel the last bathroom break of whatever Amazon warehouse employees are left instead of using productivity gains to improve working conditions, and find out.

Actually it's mostly correlated with education, and that's also why (overgeneralizing a bit) poorer nations have a higher birthrate than richer ones, and those are the only nations where population is projected to be growing. The peak population for the entire world is estimated by the UN to be happening in 2084, at around 10 billions.

I think this is very good news for the environment and the sustainability of the world, but bad news for a capitalistic system because the economy can't grow if the demand shrinks from a shrinking population. This should also explain some of of the right-wing policies and billionaires talking points (except immigration - it makes no sense thry are against that). I'm curious to see what system replaces the "number must go up" capitalism, when the number cannot possibly go up, because the number of customers of the companies is shrinking.

It's also completely wild that this wide trend of population shrinkage is actually happening for the first time in the entire human history during our lifetime!

Sadly, there are only about 340 million of us today.

Who the fuck is this sad for? Why do we need a billion Americans? Im getting really sick of the hand wringing about population growth and combined with American exceptionalism it's insufferable.

Reitrees are a burden. Children… pay for themselves? Possibly through coal mining.