I just want to make funny Pictures.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I don’t know if it’s that different from the real life luddites. Maybe the word has a different connotation in where you live, I don’t know, but I did mean it in a slight negative but mostly meaning “workers against the change”.

    I think it might benefit society (as in I don’t know), but I don’t think I’ve ever been optimistic about that. I think things in general will keep getting worse.

    I don’t know how I was saying the change is good or what was suspicious about what I said, I guess that’s more meta conversation but if you don’t mind I’d like to know

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Luddites were against automated looms because they thought it’d destroy the careers in the industry.
      They were right, it’s just that working a loom was a small enough part of the economy that it didn’t really matter.
      AI is like that, except for every creative or technical career in every industry. It promises to replace all jobs where people are provided creative or intellectual challenge. Nearly every middle class job. Assuming that LLM providers can actually deliver on their promises. But why do we even want to allow them to try?

      The owner class gets the lions share of the benefits and none of the drawbacks. The middle class gets almost no benefits, meanwhile their wages get suppressed and the job market gets wrecked.
      Even if you’re right and this will create new industries, which I’m skeptical of, displaced workers need to retrain at their own expense. How many people, in the middle of their careers and with families, can afford to just start again in a new industry with entry level salaries? And do you know how tough it is for an older person to advance in a new career?
      And even then, even if people could afford to switch careers mid-life; where are those careers? Those hypothetical new industries are going to take decades to mature let alone to even be created in the first place. How much unemployment do you think the economy can stand up to for decades?

      It’s suspicious because you seems like you have a vested interest in AI or in making AI appear positive.
      You seem to be framing AI as good for us normal folks, and that the only people at risk are those who do shitty work. That there is some kind of benefit for people to have and that the risk is so negligible that it’s fine.
      But it’s frustrating because you can’t seem to describe these benefits, or why the risks are negligible, or even worth it. You just keep steadfastly asserting that it’s ok. So where is this conviction coming from and what is the motivation to continue to assert it?

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s just that I really doubt anything can be really done about the advance of AI. Either it fizzles out or it actually delivers, and if it seems like it will deliver you won’t get people putting that genie back in the bottle. It’s just going to happen because there could be so much potential there, if it delivers.

        It’s suspicious because you seems like you have a vested interest in AI or in making AI appear positive.

        You seem to be framing AI as good for us normal folks, and that the only people at risk are those who do shitty work. That there is some kind of benefit for people to have and that the risk is so negligible that it’s fine.

        You have a weird reading of my comments, no offense. I think you’re so upset at AI that anyone not being as hostile you take as positive and pro-AI. It happens, especially online, I wouldn’t worry about it too much, but it can just make discussion hard.

        • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          How am I supposed to read

          Could be so much potential there

          If not positively, even when qualified by “if it delivers”?
          you’re saying that delivering will provide lots of potential. Unless you’re saying that the potential youre talking about is potential harm, in which case I agree but that’s a strange way to phrase it.

          Right from the start of this thread you were justifying it saying that it’s fine for it to displace workers because the workers being displaced were not doing work of value. When I laid out why it’s still a bad thing, you switched arguments to “it’s inevitable so there is no point complain”.
          Which is a strange take, because it’s totally normal to complain and air grievances about inevitable things that you don’t like. You seem really committed telling people to stop complaining about AI. It’s weird

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            You yourself said how it could replace all jobs and whatnot. If the tech was a dud then that wouldn’t happen. That’s the potential in it.

            I think it’s fine to complain, nobody is stopping you lol. I was just saying that if it delivers on that potential then it’s going to be used no matter what. That’s just how it goes, even if it is upsetting.