61
Bill Gates calls for ‘human-reserved’ jobs in face of AI takeover (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I’ve started calling this domain human reserved. I like the phrase human reserved because it makes me think of nature reserves – places where we could put buildings and roads, but we choose not to because the loss would be too great.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

If AI actually can cut enough jobs

Anyone who has used one of these knows that it can't. It's all a scheme to defraud investors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, it has cut jobs already... and replaced human talent with cheap slop.

    It can make "art". That art sucks, and is obvious where it's used. Everyone hates the AI ads.

    It can make "music". Wouldn't be surprised if it's being used in places some people haven't noticed, but probably ads or something where we tune out.

    It replaced a lot of jobs that used to have human customer service reps... Shitty jobs that are soul sucking, but also jobs that paid people's rent. And the customer service sucks more now, even worse than someone who's

    But the lie the investors bought was that it'd replace human labor. And less so, it's the new "industrial age". Nah. It's like the industrial age in some respects, but for small sectors of labor where you don't give a shit that the product is worse.

    I feel like people make this weird mistake inspired by scifi that, if a tech becomes possible, it automatically fulfills some sci-fi prophecies about changing humanity. I think we keep making this mistake, and end up realizing well maybe it's a bit more complicated, maybe there's a cost we didn't see, maybe there's fundamental limits to its potential we didn't see.

    Just because you make a chatbot that can code doesn't mean it can improve its own code exponentially. It just hasn't, and not for the lack of their trying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, it has cut jobs already...

    It didn't. Again, companies are cutting jobs to appease investors and make it look that way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    The bulk of "AI layoffs" I agree are bullshit. They are using it as an excuse to increase quarterly profits while not signalling any weakness to investors, and in fact voicing layoffs in a way that make them sound competitive.

    However ... I work in software and am married to someone in the art industry. It's definitely cut jobs in ways that might not be sustainable, but still cut jobs. They are barely hiring junior devs anymore. They think they can get away with tiny teams of seniors that use AI constantly.

    And the art industry is changed forever. They simply don't need certain artist jobs as much anymore. I know someone who would work with these people who buy images from photographers. They used to charge a ton for licensing. Now they skip the photographers and use AI and save a fuck ton of money doing it, and have actual artists clean up the AI artifacts. There is a lot less value in photography for certain industries.

    And pay attention to writers who post about their job just disappearing. AI is being used to pump out writing material that used to be a career.

    Is it sustainable? Maybe not. I think people have an eye for the AI slop and will spend less money on cheap looking services that prove they cut costs anywhere they can. But jobs have been cut.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent