Near-future automation of intellectual labor

what do you think about the automation of intellectual labor in the near future?

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI and humanity will work side by side. This is a good thing.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's so much cerebral narcissism surrounding the issue of automation. Like no shit, go onto any place its discussed and you'll have a bunch of nerds jacking themselves off about how "menial workers" will find themselves replaced.

    They're in for a shock. AI will be writing code and churning out accounting reports, codecels will be reduced to proof readers. And you could legit have a fucking Pajeet codemonkey proofread code.

    The seethe over the next fifteen years will be glorious.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      1) American imperialism will fall. This country has always benefited from the influx of migrants, but it will become an unremarkable shithole.
      2) Hunger, inequality, poverty is not a standard, but a false paradigm of hamburger capitalism imposed on us.
      3) Successful idiots slow down the train of social progress with their bodies because the rails are warm.

      AI can't make new art, it can only rearrange art that already exists. The level of direction it would need to make non-derivative material is indistinguishable from the actual artistic process, so I don't think it's going to really change much except make deviantart obsolete.

      You can't make art either. Art for which they are willing to pay. But the bottom line is that no art should be paid for, but available to everyone from birth.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Renaissance happened because the church and the wealthy would pay and finance artists for their work. We're talking real art here, back when painting was at its apex and the most famous artists were judged by meritocracy. Real art should be paid for, it takes a staggering amount of time and talent to make and as such it deserves the value it gets.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What is real art?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          AI can't make new art, it can only rearrange art that already exists. The level of direction it would need to make non-derivative material is indistinguishable from the actual artistic process, so I don't think it's going to really change much except make deviantart obsolete.

          No such thing as "new art"
          Only themes and artistic abilities. We have AI who already makes art, its popular with artists because it creates references
          t. painter (semi-professionally, only make 25% of my income from there)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Typical artist. Why don't you stick to making art and leave thinking about art to other people.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Heh this
      Automation has already replaced many menial workers, cranes already did without being AI
      And all tge big factories
      Humans are still needed to run these
      But code or other meme pseud fields? Nothing yet
      It's going to be orgasmic

      Also, creating tools for the average person to study in 2 months and be competent at it. Like webdesign
      So even the courses for these get annihilated
      It's over for nerds and geeks

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI can't make new art, it can only rearrange art that already exists. The level of direction it would need to make non-derivative material is indistinguishable from the actual artistic process, so I don't think it's going to really change much except make deviantart obsolete.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Current AI, no. But there's no reason to think it's inherently impossible unless you think the human brain contains some magic process that's not subject to the laws of physics.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        AI can't make new art, it can only rearrange art that already exists. The level of direction it would need to make non-derivative material is indistinguishable from the actual artistic process, so I don't think it's going to really change much except make deviantart obsolete.

        You're talking about modern art tho. Shit, souless "art" that yes, an AI can reproduce and mass create. Actual Art that requires years and years of skill and learning, even if an AI can copy it, the human work behind the work itself is what gives it more authenticity and value. for an AI to be compared to a human artistic wise, first it would have to be sentient and second it would have to be something truly spectacular

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      You're talking about modern art tho. Shit, souless "art" that yes, an AI can reproduce and mass create. Actual Art that requires years and years of skill and learning, even if an AI can copy it, the human work behind the work itself is what gives it more authenticity and value. for an AI to be compared to a human artistic wise, first it would have to be sentient and second it would have to be something truly spectacular

      https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/
      Seems to be that AI has already surpassed most human artists. Looking at some of these results makes me think we have maybe another decade or two before human artists are completely obsolete.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        the human provides the words to make the AI do it's thing, therefore the human is the one creating the art, the AI is just a tool that assists them in their vision

        AI cannot yet generate art on its own, and by that I mean choosing what to draw without external application of control until that happens AI haven't "created" art only transcribed it

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          But we also have AI that generate stories and such. Seems trivial to have an AI generate the prompt for Dall e 2.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Drawing is more abstract and less bound by rules (as in, there are none) then arranged words.

            Does that mean a human isn't creating art when they take commissions?

            The difference is those humans taking commissions can make things without the external output of requests, even if they do not do so actively.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Drawing is more abstract and less bound by rules (as in, there are none) then arranged words.
              So what? The AI that generates the prompts can include words like abstract, surreal, etc.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                What I mean is that drawing has no goals. There is no way for it to "win". On its own, what can it do without input? How does the AI know when to start, what to start, where to start? A singular unremarkable point, and it goes in one of a ten thousand directions over and over. How could it sense when it is finished with a piece? If you bind it with prompts, it is ever unable to go outside of them. Even a AI drawling a lone perfect circle without input is near-impossible except through brute force/thousand monkey with a thousand typewriter thing.

                Words by contrast have a clear direction. One way. And sentences are much more finite a construct.

                In terms of difficulty it's an AI trying to solve tic-tac-toe (storywriting) vs trying to solve chess (art).

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                And yet art AI is a lot further along than story AI.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not without input.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                But since you believe that story AI is easier, then there's no problem having AI also handle the input. You're going in circles.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                You win.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                We'll accept our AI overlords together.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Does that mean a human isn't creating art when they take commissions?

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Im happy because it ACCELERATES

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think the idea that "intellectual labor" can even be automated is a very funny joke. Like, if a computer can write "better" prose about politics than a human being, then that doesn't mean intellectual labor is obsolete, that means that politics itself is meaningless.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      How do you figure? It's not like there's an unbridgeable gap between intelligences implemented in flesh and those implemented in silicon, unless, as I said, you think human brains contain some magic process not governed by the laws of physics.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Which is such a pathetically rationalist answer to what I said. That's like saying there's nothing that is intrinsically different between having an actual daughter and a robot as long as the robot can fake being your daughter sufficiently.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not sure if your answer makes sense to me. In the extreme case, suppose you have a perfect atom-level simulation of a human brain- why should you suppose that it's meaningfully different from an actual one?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not the point, the point is what value a piece of art or writing has when it is made by a machine. The whole point of art is that it is an intrinsically human endeavor, it is a cultural and existential representation of the human condition, if it is made by robots, then the whole point of its existence is null and void.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              Why can't a robot have meaning to its existence too? Unless, again, you think there's some magic process in the human brain that isn't governed by the laws of physics.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why can't a robot have meaning to its existence too?

                So you care more about your phone than your family?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't say that. And the most intelligent machine that exists today doesn't have a particularly meaningful existence. But that doesn't mean it's inherently impossible. Why do you think it is?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                What does meaningful existence mean?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                What are you using it to mean? You're the one who used it first.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, I said that art and prose writing are intrinsically human actions that represent the human condition, if a machine does those things, they are no longer human and thus their significance is gone.

                Like, a human being painting a picture of his children out of love is not something a machine can do, because it neither understands love, nor will it ever have children.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why can't a machine understand love? Again, in the extreme case suppose you have an atom-for-atom computer simulation of a human brain- how can there be any meaningful difference psychologically between that and a normal human?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why can't a machine understand love?

                Because love is a unique phenomenon to humans and other higher order animals? You do understand that a machine cannot understand anything it isn't programmed to understand, and even then it only understands syntax and not semantics?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Current machines, sure. But why is it inherently impossible for it to?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why should I entertain these fanciful hypotheticals though, they aren't real, and there's no guarantee they ever will be real unless you are some kind of religiously fanatical techno-optimist.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, I don't think it's a guarantee, but I think whether it's possible is a meaningful question whose answer has meaningful implications.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I think whether it's possible is a meaningful question

                Why? The only thing that happened when humans invented steam or electricity was that it freed capital and labor previously used to create energy by other means to go elsewhere.

                Chances are that if general AI is even invented, what they'll do is be poker machines and work on oil rigs.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You do understand that a machine cannot understand anything it isn't programmed to understand
                But in that guy's example, where it is a perfect simulation of a human brain, how is that not programmed to understand everything a human can?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                So I am supposed to argue against a perfectly constructed scenario(for you) where human society is so technologically advanced it is capable of simulating 10 to the power 30 neurons in silicone?

                This is fucking sci-fi tier ridiculous, and it will never happen.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                We're already at the stage where such a simulation is theoretically possible if a computer had access to every extant bit.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                No we're not. A computer can't even simulate 1 neuron, let alone billions.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                "A computer" with access to every extant bit could. The only physical limitation to the complexity of simulation possible is memory.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                What the fuck does "access to every extant bit" mean? Just repeating yourself doesn't make for a good argument.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly what it fucking says you gay. As in, if a computer had access to all the world's current computer memory.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                see

                ITT: Techno-zealots incapable of separating what is in principle scientifically possible with what actually will happen in the future.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think you've lost sight of the conversation. I'm not saying we actually will create a perfect human brain simulation in the future, I'm saying the fact that it's physically possible to do so means the idea that humans are uniquely capable of understanding art is false. Even if an AI doesn't resemble the human brain at all, we have no reason to think the human brain is special.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm saying the fact that it's physically possible to do so means the idea that humans are uniquely capable of understanding art is false.

                No, because you still haven't proven that a computer has semantics, or understanding itself. Have you ever heard of the Chinese room?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                The Chinese Room is a stupid intuition pump and I'm not sure why anyone thought it was a good argument to begin with.
                http://zompist.com/searle.html

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                The point is that you're claiming a robot will be able to understand art, and the only evidence you submit in defense for this claim is a completely sci-fi tier argument that it's scientifically possible to simulate a human brain in silicone.

                And I'm saying this is fucking ridiculous, and the only thing it shows is how religiously fanatical you people are about technology.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm aware it's an extremely difficult problem. But again I don't see how it can be theoretically impossible unless the human brain contains some magic process that doesn't follow the laws of physics- which you still haven't answered whether you believe.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But again I don't see how it can be theoretically impossible unless the human brain contains some magic process that doesn't follow the laws of physics- which you still haven't answered whether you believe.

                I'm completely agnostic on such a thing tbh, the question is why you just automatically believe in computationalism/functionalism. If the human mind is just a computer, what does that say about the value of your life?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think it says anything. Value is something we make, it's not an intrinsic feature of the universe itself. But given that we can physically see different regions of an MRI light up as someone thinks, and observe a person's thoughts and behavior changing if they suffer brain injury or take mind-altering substances, and we haven't seen any clear evidence of an immaterial soul, it's not clear to me why someone would think the mind isn't a physical process at this point.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Value is something we make

                No it's not. If your mind is simply a computer, you don't "make" shit; everything, including your breathing, your beliefs and your actions are simply a computation outside of your conscious control.

                At minimum, a belief in computationalism is a belief in hard determinism.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                What about the role of quantum randomness?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds like cope to me.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Even from a materialist point of view, all the processes of the brain exist to facilitate the movement of electrons, which is what computers do too. If qualia is material, that's where it is. And if it's spiritual, which is to say that it can't be quantified at all, then there's no reason to assume computers can't have a spirit.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                I haven't proven that you have that either, and in fact I'm starting to doubt it.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              When AI can write better novels than humans, the last remaining human authors will be ghost written by AI. Eventually we either accept that AI has creatively surpassed us or accept that art was always meaningless.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >accept that art was always meaningless.

                Yes, and that's the point. If a machine is better at being human than humans themselves are, then nihilism is true.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nihilism is true, what's the problem?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >what's the problem?

                The problem is why make machines that are more efficient at doing things if existence is pointless you moron.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why do anything if existence is pointless?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why not do anything if it's pointless? If there's no point, what's stopping someone from just making one up?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sure so let's make super AI to replace us, seems cool.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: Techno-zealots incapable of separating what is in principle scientifically possible with what actually will happen in the future.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not gonna happen to the degree people predict because
    >If AI does something bad, someone has got to pay for it
    This is why we still have pilots despite having the technology to make 100% self flying planes. Same with art, deepfakes got soft banned from most porn sites once it became clear how much of a legal minefield it was, do you really think they'll create a machine that can draw/write/produce anything with zero limitations? The real reason AI will never 100% replace humans is because if something goes wrong there needs to be someone to point the finger to.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think its inevitable because machines have always outthinked humans meaning smart humans are inferior to any machine designed to do their thinking art.

Your email address will not be published.