If we stop calling it "Artificial Intelligence" and start calling it "Human Replacement" people will use it differently.

[-]

shponglespore@reddit

That could mean any labor-saving technology.

Reply

[-]

Ehhhhhh I think we can all agree that this is different. The speed, accuracy, and *breadth* of capabilities this technology provides is jarring. It ain’t like it’s just a calculator or an automocar or something. Never before have we faced something that’s potentially going to replace, like, *half* of all the jobs and *all* of the “new” ones that get created.

Reply

[-]

Potato_Octopi@reddit

We've replaced well over 50% of jobs with automation already.

Reply

[-]

pseudonominom@reddit

There’s never been a technology that’s eliminated 50% of jobs in, say, five years (which the LLMs are on track to do). Oh, and the new jobs it will create? It can do those, too. The pace of it is a new phenomenon.

Reply

[-]

Potato_Octopi@reddit

OK, but I don't see where LLMs are on track to do that. We're still net up jobs each month and weakness isn't due to LLMs.

Reply

[-]

pseudonominom@reddit

We’ll see what happens I guess. But folks comparing this technology to “a circular saw” are making a mistake. There’s no comparable technology to this. It’s doesn’t do *one* task better, it does *virtually any* task better. In five years it will be much, much more obvious to people.

Reply

[-]

Tensor3@reddit

No it doesn't lol. Not even close. LLMs / AI cant do many tasks at all, like all of the trades. It does many things objectively worse than any human, including customer support, coding, translation, and other stuff its constantly pitched as doing. Its more like if someone invented the first nail gun, but its slower, more cumbersome, and more expensive than a regular hammer. It saves you "effort". I can replace a human with a hammer. But if you can afford a human, the task gets done better. It may replace humans with hammers when it improves, but we don't know if that will be in 1 year or 5 or 20.

Reply

[-]

Akkalevil@reddit

That's just the denial and constantly-moving goalpost talking. We went in barely 10 years from chatbot that were unable to say anything making sense to a system which is able to understand context, humor, underlying meaning and suggest solutions for complex problems, but shortsighted idiots just ignore that and only focus on the quickly-reduced failings to pretend that it's useless. Mankind will kills itself through its own combination of arrogance and stupidity, that's for sure.

Reply

[-]

Tensor3@reddit

lol what? Don't restart 4 month old conversations just to throw baseless insults. The comment you replied to was just some basic common sense. AI can't do "virtually ANY task" today, come on.

Reply

[-]

Akkalevil@reddit

"today" maybe not, but still a massive array of jobs that were unthinkable to do by anyone but a human merely a few years ago. It can already makes redundant countless jobs, which hasn't yet happened just because of social inertia, and this is going only to worsen pretty fast. How long before it's strictly better than humans on every aspect ? I wouldn't make a bet about it being that long, and if people weren't such heads-in-the-sand they should either.

Reply

[-]

Tensor3@reddit

Ah, so now you're moving the goalposts. Sounds like you don't know how to follow a conversation, bud.

Reply

[-]

Akkalevil@reddit

I'm not the one who has a hard time following a conversation when you seem to already have forgotten that you were answering to someone who was talking about what would happen in five years, and that the very core of my first answer was about how fast the technology is evolving. In fact it seems you're just grasping at straws and unable to follow an argument at all. Fitting.

Reply

[-]

Tensor3@reddit

"It’s doesn’t do *one* task better, it does *virtually any* task better." I replied to this. Go check again.

Reply

[-]

Akkalevil@reddit

Grasp more at straws.

Reply

[-]

Tensor3@reddit

You're the one harassing me to nitpick an ancient comment because you misread it.

Reply

[-]

NewDifference3694@reddit

That is just not true. It does not have to do with “computer programming” better than a human; if it can help a human be 10x more productive with their programming then projects that required a 100 people now require only 10. It does not have to replace human 100% to “replace jobs”. It is also pretty fucking great at translation. Maybe not to translate literary classics but for a pamphlet or menu? Yeah no need for humans anymore.

Reply

[-]

Tensor3@reddit

It absolutely doea noy make anyone 10x more productive unless you mean add 10x more bugs and technical debt.

Reply

[-]

NewDifference3694@reddit

This is simply not true. LLMs are great at: - adding unit tests to existing suites for improved coverage - renaming classes and moving code around - writing standard algorithms such as dfs, bfs,binary search in an efficient way - writing sql queries for metrics analysis and monitoring - summarizing code or architecture in complex existing systems - explaining error messages - detecting common mistakes in code reviews This is a pretty big part of most developers work. I do also disagree with the assumption that it is better than humans at any task, which is the comment you were replying to. But the idea that it is not massively helpful in software development is just false.

Reply

[-]

Tensor3@reddit

Are you chatgpt? Again, no. You cant seem to read. I didnt say they arent good or arent helpful. I said they arent BETTER than a human. If you want to argue about what wasnt said, go do it without me.

Reply

[-]

deviantbono@reddit

Tbf, most technology is like that at first. Steam engines explode. Assembly machines mangle workers. That logic never stops progess. It just has to be good enough (and not need heath benefits).

Reply

[-]

kernelangus420@reddit

We've had food made in automated factories for a cheaper price for many years now yet people still go out to restaurants to eat food that's more expensive and slow. We've had plastic plants that look realistic and don't need water and sunlight yet people still buy real plants for their homes. AI products may be faster and cheaper but not all humans want them.

Reply

[-]

PlayPretend-8675309@reddit

I suspect if you counted, more than half the jobs don't exist anymore that existed in say, 1825.

Reply

[-]

SpaceMonkey@reddit

Agreed, computers for example come into the office fairly slowly. AI was kind of an over night thing. I am very worried about my job, that people will just say it is easier to just use AI. 5 years ago I though there would always be a need for my position in my life time. I am a photographer/graphic designer. Even though with phone cameras and online tools make it easier for people to just do graphic work themselves, that was slowly introduced and improved over time. I thought there will still be a need for a professional polished look, at least for a while to come. With in the last year, I am worried. We are already starting to get "do it with AI it is faster, cheaper, easier, even if it is not perfect it will be good enough (because it is basically free)...". No need to photograph a dog, just get AI to create one. I don't know, but it looks like the change is going to move fairly fast with out really giving people a chance to adjust.

Reply

[-]

PlayPretend-8675309@reddit

Except this time, it's the type of labor \**I\** aspire to. So it's different when it happens to me, I'm from the suburbs, not one of those inner city poors or immigrants.

Reply

[-]

shadowhunter742@reddit

Yep. We should be calling them llms. (Language learning models). Intelligence doesn't actually mean shit, I mean what is intelligence anyway? But it does invoke a sense of knowledge which is wrong.

Reply

[-]

shponglespore@reddit

I'm conflicted. I think there's value in a blanket term that covers different AI technologies that are used in conjunction (like LLMs and stable diffusion), but I hate the term AI because it has been used to describe so many things over a span of decades. It covers everything from sophisticated video generation to the behavior of the ghosts in Pac Man.

Reply

[-]

shadowhunter742@reddit

Yea this is the thing. Like ai as a term is so much stuff, with vast range and complexity scales that it's essentially meaningless, and all these smaller, lower criticality systems that people have been accustomed to mean they trust much bigger systems, like gpt too heavily too quickly, because 'its not new we've had ai for years'.

Reply

[-]

EmpireStrikes1st@reddit

Yeah, but who benefits from the labor? If you want humans to live a life of luxury while robots do all the work, you need to wrest control and money down from the top.

Reply

[-]

shponglespore@reddit

That has been the case since the industrial revolution. I'm almost certain it's what inspired Marx.

Reply

[-]

EmpireStrikes1st@reddit

I'm certain it did. When peasants were tilling the fields, the kings provided them with security, because God had divinely chosen them. Once it was more obvious that the wealth was created by labor and exploited by the people who owned the machines, Marx wrote the Manifesto.

Reply

[-]

its_a_gibibyte@reddit

I bought an electric saw to cut some 2x4s. OP wishes I hired a guy to cut the 2x4s all day with a handsaw.

Reply

[-]

Tricky-Bat5937@reddit

Yes. I need to perform some calculations, let me call up my friend Bob, he's a computer.

Reply

[-]

JaguarMammoth6231@reddit

*Call* your friend Bob? Why not hire a courier?

Reply

[-]

consider_its_tree@reddit

A handsaw? I think you mean a Beaver Replacer

Reply

[-]

FluidAmbition321@reddit

We been replacing humans since we started building machines.

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

Yes, but until now, corporations were replacing only one industry at a time with limited purpose machines. Now, we're talking about replacing any employee who uses their brain and a computer for their work. It won't be just the auto workers out of jobs. It will be everyone who can't justify the need for a live human to do the thing they do, and maybe even that won't be a good enough argument.

Reply

[-]

TheGruenTransfer@reddit

We should call it what it is, unpaid-intern calibre of researcher

Reply

[-]

avidpenguinwatcher@reddit

I’m not an AI alarmist, but don’t you think you’re minimizing what AI is right now? Three years ago you couldn’t do any of this with chat bots and look where we are. You don’t think it’s going to continue getting better every year?

Reply

[-]

Lowelll@reddit

3 years ago chatgpt 3.5 was out for half a year dude. For one, every technology hits diminishing returns. The fact that we landed on the moon 50 years ago didn't mean we landed on Mars since then and it doesn't mean we will ever land on the sun. And specifically for LLMs, they're not going to get better at the same rate. They already haven't been for a while. Gpt4 & 5 were incremental improvements on the previous version and they have not offered significant new use cases.

Reply

[-]

ijekster@reddit

“The iPhone 4 offers no significant new use cases over the iPhone 3”

Reply

[-]

Lowelll@reddit

Yes, thanks for supporting my point. The vast amount of actual societal change that smartphones brought was extremely front loaded, and after the first decade they basically have not changed at all. It would be unreasonable to expect different from language models

Reply

[-]

cantthink0faname485@reddit

Then I assume you still use an iPhone 3? You never bothered to upgrade?

Reply

[-]

consider_its_tree@reddit

>Every technology hits diminishing returns. They also develop in fits and starts. It is not a steady curve that plateaus. Sometimes a breakthrough cracks open a ton of possible applications - the Internet for example. There is also a gap between the technology being released and fully understanding what applications it might have. I am not saying that AI will necessarily have internet level impacts, anyone who thinks they know well enough what changes technology will bring is not credible. However, technology that completely alters the way we live is rare and hard to predict by the nature of the fact that it would not be notable if it happened all of the time. Pretending those situations don't exist because most things follow a different trajectory is only going to be right most of the time by virtue of that rarity, not because of some clever foresight or law of technology.

Reply

[-]

HommeMusical@reddit

> You don’t think it’s going to continue getting better every year? This is so far a business sector that loses hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Considering that they're spending exponentially increasing money for marginal improvements, very likely not.

Reply

[-]

ijekster@reddit

You’re just throwing darts at a board. You dont know anything really

Reply

[-]

HommeMusical@reddit

Looks like you went right to the personal insult. Did you forget the part where you post facts, reasoning, logic, citations, appeal to peer reviewed papers or some sort of sign of intelligence?

Reply

[-]

ijekster@reddit

It’s not an insult to say you aren’t capable of predicting the global financial market with any more accuracy than a blind dart. Unless you’re Warren buffet? That would be cool

Reply

[-]

HommeMusical@reddit

As I said, there is absolutely no guarantee that AI is going to get better every year, given that they have been spending rapidly increasing amounts of money to get increasingly marginal improvements. It is the idea that AI is certain to make huge improvements that needs proving. Bringing up Warren Buffet isn't actually an argument one way or the other.

Reply

[-]

ijekster@reddit

Some people are going to get burned but there will obviously be a dominant player in the market. There’s always AI use cases for like every software in the world. AI is just always improving, it’s gotten so insanely good so quickly that it’s shaken the world. You’re looking at tiny periods with a microscope and ignoring the macro trend. Ok so you’re not Warren buffet

Reply

[-]

HommeMusical@reddit

> AI is just always improving, AI had 50 years of nothing happening and then a sudden burst of progress for five years. That doesn't guarantee that that progress will continue. Each incremental improvement requires far more computations than the previous step and again, so far the whole field continues to lose money at about a billion dollars _a day_. Maybe it will succeed, maybe it won't. It is by no means a sure thing.

Reply

[-]

consider_its_tree@reddit

Honestly the whole: AI is bad (morally) so AI is bad (technologically) that you see everywhere is not just incredibly misinformed, it is counter to what those people actually want. If you ignore the absolutely staggering improvements to AI in recent years (which is a field that has existed for decades), then you are going to let it sneak right into everything without thinking about regulations copyrights, or any other controls. These "AI is bad because I don't like it" people are going to be the reason corporations have powerful AI models that replace people and give all the productivity gains to the rich.

Reply

[-]

ijekster@reddit

In your opinion it’s bad but a vast majority disagrees. It’s humanity’s natural path, that’s not more immoral than putting the horse and buggy industry out of business 100 years ago.

Reply

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CrazyIdeas) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

[-]

Waffle-Gaming@reddit

it's wrong about what it says 80% of the time. it's most accurate at replicating human speech patterns. that's it.

Reply

[-]

avidpenguinwatcher@reddit

Source on that 80% number?

Reply

[-]

Cheap-Syllabub8983@reddit

True. But also true of about 2/3 of humans.

Reply

[-]

JustPlayDaGame@reddit

yes, indeed. AI is the new unpaid intern. It can process trillions of things at once and is getting better at it constantly. Can your unpaid intern do that? It can generate assets for your site or game in bulk, in seconds. Do you not understand how fucked we are? That’s the bar. That’s the new “free” option for companies. You think they’ll want to give someone who can’t even come close *money* for the same work?

Reply

[-]

joylessbrick@reddit

You need to micromanage the hell out of it though. If I want a website created I can't just turn around to an AI and ask it for a website. I still need to be very specific with what I want and need and I might have absolutely no clue of the aforementioned other than "I need it done". Yeah, it will replace some jobs, but not as many as people think because you still need someone who knows what they're doing to prompt it. My personal example: I'm a novice at access but know very basic features. I used AI to create a database that has a dumbed down user interface. I did 90% of it "vibe coding", but I struggled whenever I had to use it to add something I didn't know where to find or fine tune. It turned out fine. I've never would have done it without the code BUT, a similar task was given to a colleague of mine and he simply could not start because he had extremely little knowledge of access.

Reply

[-]

ijekster@reddit

Use AI to create a walk through for the AI

Reply

[-]

joylessbrick@reddit

Valid point. But if you're not familiar at all with what you're building, your results aren't going to be good... I've been using AI before it went mainstream and will continue to use it, but my manager couldn't have built why have built without me prompting the AI and fine tuning it.

Reply

[-]

duskfinger67@reddit

That’s also entirely true of a web designer, though? If you turned around and asked me to create a website, I’d need to ask a host of questions about use case, traffic, design, interface, etc. I’m not an intern, but I still need to be given a properly defined task before I can start, or have access to the information to define the task myself An AI is exactly the same: you either need to give it the information it needs for the task, or give it access to your company data and meetings so it has the required information.

Reply

[-]

FourForYouGlennCoco@reddit

And yet humans have created numerous websites to offer services that customers didn’t know they wanted. Not to mention that humans invented the web itself, without being specifically told to do so.

Reply

[-]

duskfinger67@reddit

I’m not suggesting an autonomous AI here, creating things that we didn't know we wanted. Throughout history, there have been more ‘ideas people’ then there have been engineers. I would be very surprised if Tim Berners-Lee was the first person to imagine the idea of web browser or global information sharing. However, he was the person who was able to implement it properly. AI is never going to replace the Ideas people, and I never suggested it would. What it could do is replace the implementors, if you have an idea for a website or an app, you no longer need a developer to create a prototype and test whether you idea works. You can use an AI tool instead. So whilst I don’t think that production apps are going to be written by AI any time soon, there is absolutely an opportunity for for mock ups and prototypes to be made. And I think that is amazing.

Reply

[-]

joylessbrick@reddit

Yeah, but you have a clue what you're doing. A client won't be able to replace you. You can use AI, but you're still making money. The client "wastes" time explaining what he wants, but he'll waste 1000x time chatting with AI and the result is still going to be shit, because you, as a developer, will fill in most blanks that the client has no clue about. In my example, the blanks are me knowing bits of the interface whereas my colleague didn't know anything. I might be talking over my head, but AI won't be able to replace a lot of technical jobs. As another example, I needed an funeral picture designed for dog's memorial stone. AI was shit at working with the picture I uploaded although I gave concise instructions. I ended up working with a designer because I realised it's not going to understand exactly what I wanted to convey. I did have loads of AI submitted work, but it was shittier than what I produced with AI. It's evolved a lot though, so I can't speak for the future, but I'm not seeing replacing a lot jobs due to the extra micromanaging you have to do. Or maybe that's just me.

Reply

[-]

duskfinger67@reddit

I disagree completely. It is far quicker for me to talk to ChatGPT for 2 minutes, then pop back and read the outputs when I have 5 minutes spare. If I don’t get back to them for 2 days, they aren't blocked, they don’t cost my company money whilst sitting idle. Compare that to an employee, where if I give a bad brief and then can’t give them a better one for 2 days, that has cost me £300. So not only can an AI be given instructions in the 5 minutes of downtime when I am waiting for a meeting to start, or when I am waiting for the bus, which is a better use of my time, but there is also no wasting of their time. For any task the AI can do, it is better and cheaper to use an AI than to hire a person. For the tasks they can’t do, then yeah, it is not going to be as good. So I will continue using it for quick prototypes, first-draft documents, and brainstorming. But as soon as I need a release ready app or a client-ready document, I will use a person. The main skill with AI is knowing where to use it, and where not to use it.

Reply

[-]

joylessbrick@reddit

>So not only can an AI be given instructions in the 5 minutes of downtime You can't unless it an utterly simple task. And come on... you're going on the extreme. Must people work @100% 8 hours a day? I'm going to end this here. You must be a terrible person to work for.

Reply

[-]

EMPgoggles@reddit

it's just a content recombiner. "AI" feels like a misnomer as it is.

Reply

[-]

theexteriorposterior@reddit

I've been calling it "the hallucination machine".

Reply

[-]

Purple-Measurement47@reddit

what if we stop calling them “Oxen” and start calling them human replacement

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

Sure, but we're talking about oxen that have already learned to be better than human artists, authors, math teachers, data analysts, tutors, etc.

Reply

[-]

Purple-Measurement47@reddit

You mean the ones that we domesticated and trained to be better over the course of hundreds of generations?

Reply

[-]

OldMan_NEO@reddit

My AI is not a human replacement. It is an organizational tool and creative bouncing board, with a customizable personality. All AI apps are tools, even if some are remarkably human-like... That's a reflection of the human USER, and the human DEVELOPERS - not the AI being "human".

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

Yes. As I see it, you are describing the process of teaching it to be you. To think like you. As soon as the company whose Ai you are using gets "data breached," the model you trained to work like a super-productive version of you is for sale.

Reply

[-]

PlayPretend-8675309@reddit

Except it's just as much "Human Replacement" as the steamshovel. You won't increase credibility by coming up with stupid, nonsensical terms.

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

A steam shovel that can do all of the work of every office employee of a construction company, yes.

Reply

[-]

AAHedstrom@reddit

or stop calling it "artificial intelligence" and start calling *them* image generators, text generators, google searches with extra steps, image analysers. because none of it is intelligent, and also shoving everything under one umbrella is inflating the bubble more

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

But if they can generate images, text, and scratch results better (and cheaper) than humans can, my point still stands.

Reply

[-]

OldMan_NEO@reddit

That's a better take than OP maybe... But the thing is, regardless of what we CALL it, both pro-ai people and Anti-AI people need to understand it's just a tool, sometimes with a cool "personality" (sometimes not) - and it's neither infallible nor inherently evil.

Reply

[-]

PublikSkoolGradU8@reddit

Someone has been reading too much white supremacy literature lately.

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

What do you think Grok is programmed to do

Reply

[-]

OldMan_NEO@reddit

Human Supremacy is a real movement 😩

Reply

[-]

nlamber5@reddit

HR is already a thing

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

You mean HR already WAS a thing. Ai can do those jobs.

Reply

[-]

michaelveee@reddit

This isn't crazy, this is smart

Reply

[-]

silentstorm2008@reddit

Actual Indians (See Amazon Fresh for details)

Reply

[-]

Amazing_Divide1214@reddit

I don't see the difference. Do you work in marketing? lol

Reply

[-]

Ok_Shake_368@reddit

Idk I kind of like the name Artificial intelligence. It says exactly what it is. It might look smart, but it’s all fake

Reply

[-]

pseudonominom@reddit

The term “AI” got misued for the sake of marketing. It’s not “artificial intelligence” at all until it begins asking *its own* questions and showing some unprompted curiosity.

Reply

[-]

Luxim@reddit

The issue is actually the opposite, if you go back 10+ years ago, AI was referring to *any* algorithm that could perform on a similar level as humans for a specific task. Meaning that machine learning is AI, recommendation engines is AI, chess computers are AI, speech recognition or OCR is AI, even the NPC routines in video games are AI. I wish there was more of a distinction that what we're seeing as part of the current hype bubble is mostly related to LLMs, not AI or machine learning generally.

Reply

[-]

WaterEarthFireSquare@reddit

Yeah, AI in a philosophical sense is probably impossible so we've just been calling every new trendy algorithm AI for a few decades. It's never really had a clear definition.

Reply

[-]

ijuinkun@reddit

We have invented Artificial Stupidity.

Reply

[-]

structural_nole2015@reddit

Honestly? If your job is literally on the chopping block due to A.I. (and this is probably my very privileged self speaking), then it's time to pivot to a different job. Example: Pennsylvania went completely cashless on the turnpike in 2020. But I don't think anyone is out there saying "Damn, I sure wish I was still a toll collector instead of \[insert current job here\]." A lot of people are overly worried about nothing, anyway. They're fear is based on generative AI tools like ChatGPT. Tools that require human input to get anything out of it. It's not coming to life and thinking on its own without any human input. At least, not yet.

Reply

[-]

couldathrowaway@reddit

I still feel like we missed out on calling people's intelligence artificial. It would have been an amazing insult without the connotation of what it is now.

Reply

[-]

thunder_y@reddit

But it isn’t necessarily. First of all it’s a tool. What we do with it might replace humans but that’s not what ai is.

Reply

[-]

Straight_Balance1549@reddit

Oh yes, I remember when the screwdriver replaced the human.

Reply

[-]

QuirkyFail5440@reddit

Nobody cares. We've been automating human jobs for hundreds of years. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, I mean, basically everything, including the electronics you are using to get to Reddit were undoubtedly mass produced in ways that would have given countless people jobs if we did it by hand.

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

Sure, humanity has tolerated the mechanization of certain industries over the past few decades, since there were other opportunities for human employment in owners (but I also wonder if you're underestimating the toll it takes on those employees and their families, despite the fact that the world continues to turn). Now imagine if every industry that currently employs humans replaces them all with better, smarter, cheaper, faster-learning robots all in a much shorter timeline, and there are very few other industries who want to hire all the unemployed humans.

Reply

[-]

Exciting_Turn_9559@reddit

I think that would backfire by making people believe that AI actually had the capacity to replace humans, at which point it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

What tasks do you think Ai can't to better than humans?

Reply

[-]

kenmlin@reddit

Many male virgins are already using AI as their girlfriends.

Reply

[-]

Not_a_Replika@reddit (OP)

I think that's a great example of what people in these comments seem to be pretending won't happen. Ai friends and partners will obviously be easier relationships to maintain. They can conform endlessly, theoretically come programmed with no trauma, and are always willing and available in exactly the ways their human night need. There's no reason to learn to listen, tolerate imperfection, or compromise with Ai. They literally are better than humans in these these ways and more, so it's just a question of whether/how long until humans will allow the technology to replace humans for these tasks. And even if we do call them "Human Replacements" many people might still be ok dating them and admitting it publicly.

Reply

[-]

frank26080115@reddit

It doesn't replace humans, I only use AI to do things humans can't do

Reply

[-]

Solid_Problem740@reddit

Damn you're not in corporate are ya?

Reply

[-]

WeaponB@reddit

That's your use case. But the idea that it doesn't replace anyone is demolished by the companies that have laid off employees to replace them with AI, and the careers that are finding it harder and harder to get jobs because AI can do those tasks.

Reply

[-]

pibbleberrier@reddit

Let’s not kid ourself now. It does replace *some* human

Reply

[-]

Inevitable_Ad_7236@reddit

That also refers to a sewing machine, a bulldozer, or even a fucking ox plowing a field

Reply

[-]

duskfinger67@reddit

“No, they only replace unskilled poor people, so they don't count” - OP, probably.

Reply

[-]

Solid_Problem740@reddit

OP should try making their own shirts. Let's see if they like human replacements then

Reply

[-]

Immortal_ceiling_fan@reddit

Unnecessary demonizing names for stuff just causes further polarization. It never convinces anyone who already has an opinion.

Reply

[-]

HommeMusical@reddit

But in this specific case, where _every_ job is on the cutting block, and all the technology is owned by a tiny number of rich psychopaths...?

Reply

[-]

Immortal_ceiling_fan@reddit

If you are referring to my first paragraph, doesn't change anything. If you are referring to my second, yeah, but that isn't in the original argument.

Reply

[-]

SonicLoverDS@reddit

I'm driving my Horse-and-Buggy Replacement to the Trading Post Replacement today; do you want anything?

Reply

[-]

Some-Artist-53X@reddit

So the HR department?

Reply

[-]

_______________E@reddit

We could also call it “unnecessary work automator” or “provider of all needs” if you want a biased name that only covers one potential use case.

Reply

[-]

bsensikimori@reddit

That didn't really help to stop all the robots in the automotive industry. Many many workers were replaced with robots, nobody cares.

Reply

[-]

WHAT_PHALANX@reddit

Ignorance leads to hate. And that's pretty much what this is.

Reply

[-]

LagSlug@reddit

nobody was helping me before AI with the things I use AI for, so no, it's not a "human replacement".

Reply

[-]

keshi@reddit

How would it be used differently?

Reply

[-]

jerdle_reddit@reddit

You mean a labour-saving device?

Reply

[-]

MAXIMUS-BLACK@reddit

Not a crazy idea just some Luddite talking point

Reply

[-]

Infamous-Arm3955@reddit

Crazy idea. Stop calling humans intelligent. I have the internet, I know what I'm seeing.

Reply

[-]

marshal231@reddit

If we stopped calling it “prison” and started calling it “bubbas rape house” people would look at it differently. Like yea, if you think of the extremes the uninformed can be manipulated to whatever you want.

Reply

[-]