Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mooide t1_iw11g2o wrote

Reply to comment by DyingShell in The CEO of OpenAI had dropped hints that GPT-4, due in a few months, is such an upgrade from GPT-3 that it may seem to have passed The Turing Test by lughnasadh

Increase quality of life for who? The people who used to do those jobs will starve.

2

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw157jc wrote

Yes, you know, like all the farmers and other poor people that started to starve to death when we invented machines and better farming practices.

Innovation always leads to worse outcomes, don't you know? That's why we do it. /s

13

TheTomatoBoy9 t1_iw2gqc4 wrote

There's a pretty big difference between a change happening over generations and a change happening in a timespan shorter than a generation.

In 1880, something like 50% of Americans were farmers, but the change was slow enough that the son or grand son would move to the city for a better economical outcome.

The farmer didn't wake up one morning to find his farm completely automated with drones everywhere.

The fear is that the change will be too sudden for economies to adapt and governments to implement policies like UBI. The creation of new jobs or fields is also unlikely to just happen overnight. But if the sudden change led to high unemployment and social unrest, how long can we wait for those new fields to appear while society is thrown into relative chaos?

Like many others, you seem to have this rose tinted glasses view of massive layoffs but it's OK because a massive proportion of the population will just magically requalifify for another field in like a month and poof, back on the job.

Same braindead idea as the people going "learn to code" to like a trucker lmao

4

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw2j6tr wrote

Fair enough. The rate of technological advancement keeps increasing.

So far, what you’re describing never occurred. It even has a name in economics: The Lump of Labour fallacy.

However, as changes become more and more rapid, it might be the case that labour will not be able to adjust as quickly.

In any case, I’m not particularly worried because I believe that even if it all goes to shit, it will be short term pain for long term gain. Humanity has dealt with so much worse over the ages and we’ve always managed to prevail. If a revolution of some kind becomes necessary to guarantee UBI or something like that, then be it.

In any case, long term we will be in a better society. And that’s what I ultimately care about (and not having to work too).

−2

Mooide t1_iw15jgv wrote

Only a few people can afford the IP for AI so unless they are philanthropists, their primary goal will be profit, not improving quality of life for the masses.

For an example, look at Jeff Bezos, and then look at the shitty conditions his warehouse workers deal with.

0

nembajaz t1_iw1fllf wrote

All innovations found their way to become everyday bargain, and after a while, most of them are just public domain, especially knowledge. Just try to use it!

3

GuyWithLag t1_iw236tu wrote

>Only a few people can afford the IP for AI

Only a few people can afford the IP for AI Google, yet everyone has it at their fingertips.

Same thing will happen again, unfortunately.

2

Talkat t1_iw23v7l wrote

Jeff can get away with it because of the government. You shouldn't blame Jeff for been so greedy, but the US government for allowing it

1