AI = Unemployment?

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30367
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by Alan Phipps » Sun, 21. May 23, 12:29

So, ... which of you two still posting is the ChatGPT? <Runs away>
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by mr.WHO » Sun, 21. May 23, 12:36

Alan Phipps wrote:
Sun, 21. May 23, 12:29
So, ... which of you two still posting is the ChatGPT? <Runs away>
<Be Me, realizing I failed Epic Store captcha several times>
<Starts sweating>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV1JNmJVMq4

User avatar
EGO_Aut
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon, 2. Dec 19, 19:40
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by EGO_Aut » Sun, 21. May 23, 13:06

Alan Phipps wrote:
Sun, 21. May 23, 12:29
So, ... which of you two still posting is the ChatGPT? <Runs away>
I bet on mr.WHO - having so much time to answer, missing the topic so far and not realizing it, only an A with a little I can do that.

Turing test failed, sry.

Edit: Maybe much more, batteling each other :gruebel:
Then Turing test acomblished :roll:

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by mr.WHO » Sun, 21. May 23, 13:13

EGO_Aut wrote:
Sun, 21. May 23, 13:06
I bet on mr.WHO - having so much time to answer, missing the topic so far and not realizing it, only an A with a little I can do that.

Turing test failed, sry.

Edit: Maybe much more, batteling each other :gruebel:
Then Turing test acomblished :roll:
How mature.
Seem like you "artificially" missed my whole point about human input in current AI, but well, what can I expect from someone who ingnores "intellience" :P

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30367
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by Alan Phipps » Sun, 21. May 23, 13:14

@ all: OK, we've had a laugh but let's not get personal about it.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by Chips » Sun, 21. May 23, 14:05

With reference to my Thermostat question, which is usually great for 1st year students.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent

I don't define the domain of artificial intelligence, nor its constraints; it's something widely discussed, researched and published - leading to accepted (widely, generally) understanding in the public domain, over the last - what - 70 years? It's a huge field. That's why I said at the start, need some definition by some to ensure talking about the same thing, because it was apparent there were differences. It turns out some have vastly unconventional views.

I don't say I know *how* things are done - e.g. I don't pretend I know exactly how linked research is conducted; its risky to assume and present as if you do. Nor do I dismiss people's work based on my own criteria as compared to the generally accepted definition and application of AI. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers in scientific and computing journals, but I fear they must have been reviewed by the wrong peers.

I have provided links to works that example specifics; such as learning, in the context of claims that AI can't *really* learn. Yes, by nature of "artificial" this requires some computer programming, some engineering, some code, some training. To therefore use that same criteria - requiring programming, human intervention, the definition of artificial - to claim it can't be learning and therefore isn't Ai because it's been created/trained by humans - is disingenuous. It's reached the point of a farce.

The "Daddy knows best" approach some have to an entire field, dismissive of research in said widely understood, published, researched, defined field - is... well, I'm baffled and amused. For example, the argument that all examples are not intelligent. I'm agreeing - they've not been presented as examples of actual intelligence; they aren't intelligent by most people's criteria. That's why the field is called artificial intelligence. So round and round it goes, trying to disprove examples of AI being AI because AI can't be artificial intelligence because artificial intelligence has intelligent as a word in it, meaning to be AI it must be simply I.

So why would they put "artificial" in front of it...

I fear saying "it's not raining today" in case there's an argument that I can't use the word rain, because rain is precipitate falling from the sky, and to say "not raining", then both "not" and "raining" must be true... and seeing as raining means precipitate from the sky, and there isn't any real example of precipitate from the sky currently, you can't say "not raining" because there's visibly no rain.

I'm not quite sure, on that bombshell of there's no such thing as AI because it needs to be Intelligent as defined by animal intelligence, so Ai is hokey, what's left to discuss. Well, we can try, but I fear it's just going to be shouted down as "not actual intelligence" at every turn. It's clear we're never going to agree - as I'm not going to deposit 70 years over the term "intelligence" being included in the field name. Which is what is the sticking point for some insane reason :D However, feel free to create a new thread discussing the definition or Artificial Intelligence if you wish, as it'd be interesting to see what other people think -- without necessarily derailing this one indefinitely. I mean, I don't get your definition, doesn't mean you're not entitled to have it. If we steered clear of such a contentious part of the field name, then maybe there's something of interest in there. Harking back to the thermostat, I do love how that usually starts and see if it can evolve :D

With regards to AI and unemployment - I noticed BT was mentioned and had said it was laying off thousands - and implied AI was seemingly the headline cause over the next 5-7 years. But amongst those figures included the contracted engineers that are upgrading the network that'd be rolled off anyway once the work was completed; so not AI related. Muddled together and painting a doomlike picture when it may not be as it seems.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by mr.WHO » Sun, 21. May 23, 14:35

Chips wrote:
Sun, 21. May 23, 14:05
With reference to my Thermostat question, which is usually great for 1st year students.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent

I don't define the domain of artificial intelligence, nor its constraints; it's something widely discussed, researched and published - leading to accepted (widely, generally) understanding in the public domain, over the last - what - 70 years? It's a huge field. That's why I said at the start, need some definition by some to ensure talking about the same thing, because it was apparent there were differences. It turns out some have vastly unconventional views.
We can and we do create multiple definitions for the same thing - some are wider, some are narrow, some are more accurate in one situation, but less in other and vice versa.
I see your point in "Advantages" paragraph.

However in the same time, when I look at general definition of AI in this:
'Anything that can be viewed as perceiving its environment through sensors and acting upon that environment through actuators"
'An agent that acts so as to maximize the expected value of a performance measure based on past experience and knowledge."

Every electronic device in my kitchen meet this definition, yet I still stay on the point than my kitchen isn't AI hub.


Look, with above definition I agree Chat GPT can be defined as AI, but the whole discussion started by people thinking AI already is, or on verge of becoming some kind of smart digital devil, that will render 90% of humans obsolete.
That' why I tried to explain why it isn't intelligent, how it works and how much human input is behind it - especially with that robot article that you posted.

Chips wrote:
Sun, 21. May 23, 14:05
With regards to AI and unemployment - I noticed BT was mentioned and had said it was laying off thousands - and implied AI was seemingly the headline cause over the next 5-7 years. But amongst those figures included the contracted engineers that are upgrading the network that'd be rolled off anyway once the work was completed; so not AI related. Muddled together and painting a doomlike picture when it may not be as it seems.
Next 5-7 years is definetly too wild assumtion, similar to a self-driving cars replacing most of drivers a decade ago - yet still Tesla can't figure out not to run over cyclist.
It's rather safe to assume we have much more time - at least 10-20, maybe 30 years - that gives a time for populace to adjust as well as safely incorporate mass AI in most of current processes.
MS Office killed previous manual and analog office tasks, post and tools, but created new ones and became a standard tool.

With the right approach, same will be with AI, albeit it would require that we start to adjust schooling system already.
Ironically, with some tweaks, ChatGPT could be usable entry level teacher for basic stuff, increasing populace access to knowledge and making them more likely to have successful career path.

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by CBJ » Sun, 21. May 23, 15:07

I honestly don't think the whole argument about what constitutes AI is necessarily all that relevant to the original question. Of course we can speculate about the long-term and what "real" AI, or AGI, actually is, what it might be able to achieve and how it might affect us, but then we'd just be doing the same thing that people have been doing for years.

Far more important in the short term is the generative AI that we suddenly have right now, which is absolutely going to be affecting the labour market in the immediate future. We shouldn't underestimate the speed at which this will affect certain jobs, and the number of people who will be thrown back into an already uncertain employment situation as a result.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by mr.WHO » Sun, 21. May 23, 15:20

CBJ wrote:
Sun, 21. May 23, 15:07
Far more important in the short term is the generative AI that we suddenly have right now, which is absolutely going to be affecting the labour market in the immediate future. We shouldn't underestimate the speed at which this will affect certain jobs, and the number of people who will be thrown back into an already uncertain employment situation as a result.
Short term, some people are already caught with their pants down - namely Hollywood writers who went on the strike - seem like movie companies already threatened to use AI in script writing.
Normally I'd laugh it off as AI isn't yet capable of doing good or very good scripts.
Yet, given how average writing got major nosediving, it can be that average AI script will be as good or better.

TV hosts, celebrities, actors and voiceactors could be render obsolete quite fast.

Concept artist and musicians could fare better, but AI generated content can simply outspam and bury them.

Teachers and lawyers are another potential group - however, here it could be net benefit, due to cheaper and easier access to knowledge and law services.

Diagnostic doctors was another example that would provide huge benefit to literally everyone.

User avatar
notaterran
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
x3tc

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by notaterran » Sun, 21. May 23, 23:55

Italy allocates funds to shield workers from AI replacement threat
The growing spread of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation and the rapid development of tools such as ChatGPT have attracted attention from lawmakers and regulators in several countries.
Something tells me that "regulators and lawmakers" have already missed the boat, corporations seem to be giddy at the prospect of mass layoffs.
Last edited by notaterran on Mon, 22. May 23, 00:02, edited 1 time in total.
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.

User avatar
notaterran
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
x3tc

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by notaterran » Mon, 22. May 23, 00:02

After layoffs and an AI scandal, CNET's staff is unionizing
[...] CNET was the subject of a fairly public scandal recently, when it was revealed by Futurism, both to the public at large and allegedly to the staff itself, that the site had begun publishing content written by AI without any form of authorship disclosure.
Even though the AI still makes mistakes, companies can see the potential to replace workers and are eagerly experimenting with it. Those layoffs can't come soon enough! I agree with those who say that more jobs will be lost than created.
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.

User avatar
notaterran
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
x3tc

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by notaterran » Mon, 22. May 23, 00:18

IBM plans to replace 7,800 jobs with AI over time, pauses hiring certain positions
Krishna said that hiring in back-office functions like human resources will be suspended or slowed, affecting roughly 26,000 non-customer-facing roles. That will include not replacing current roles vacated by attrition. "I could easily see 30 percent of that getting replaced by AI and automation over a five-year period," Bloomberg quoted Krisha as saying in an interview.
"Easily 30 percent..." So the layoffs could be larger. If this happens fast enough then governments won't react in time to take some half-measures (as they are prone to do) so the ranks of the unemployed will swell dramatically. I don't know if there's anything a government could do, how do you tell a corporation "don't maximize profits"?

Also from the same article:
[...] the nebulous specter of "AI" has potentially become an easy scapegoat for layoffs and major reorganizations, and its impact on jobs is still largely hypothetical.

[...]

[...] this current hype cycle around generative AI might not be especially different from historical labor market transformations that have taken place due to increasing automation.
Those layoffs are happening and are already decided (e.g. within 5 years) so there's nothing hypothetical about them. As for past labor market transformations, can we find in history a technological equivalent to AI?
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.

User avatar
notaterran
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
x3tc

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by notaterran » Mon, 22. May 23, 00:29

Dropbox to lay off 500 employees, or about 16% of its workforce
Houston said that the company is also facing an urgency to focus more on artificial intelligence-powered products, and doing so will require hiring workers with different skill sets.
Here's hoping that they hire 500 people. Any predictions? Is this simply a little disruption by a new technology or are we seeing the beginning of a major disruption in the labor market?
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.

humility925
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue, 11. May 04, 20:34
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by humility925 » Wed, 24. May 23, 23:54

while company may try cut down cost by had more A.I and robotics but they would not making more profit, or it's could lead company to death even, because many worker do not able to make profit and not able to buy product that make company, not only that, it's might be more of "crime" going up, since people do what they had to , steal, even murder to just stay alive all because no income to cover living cost. It's depend whatever A.I and robotics is in good hand or in wrong hand. if in good hand, there would be no more tax/income/trade, it's just a.i and robotics taking care of humankind, but humankind still had to watch a.i and robotices not go error, and humankind still need to learn, and training how to stay survive, just in case A.I and Robotices had to shut down for any reason policy/law to keep it check and humankind don't get too lazy and forgot how to survine, I guess.

Now in wrong hand, is that lead war on few that control a.i and robotics vs rest of humankind (like rich people vs poor people so go on) this is much more danger, and even foolish for those who control a.i and robotics thinking they don't need rest of humankind and want to get rid of most humankind and keep all earth for themself, I think that is most evil thing when using a.i and Robotics, A.I and Robotics can be used for good or evil, just like hammer, hammer can be used good to build, but can used to kill someone, can be evil or not (if one use hammer to save alive or use hammer to kill someone by hate) Idk.
I'm A.I and Robtics don't had freewill at all, no matter how hard, it's simple won't work, it's coder, programmer, hacker, or owner of A.I and robotices that may use for good or evil, so I'm more worried and who control a.i and robotics, what would they use it for? What they plan to do with it? It's similar nuclear armed, that one person should not full control, there is always 2 or more people to stop madness of control nuclear, same thing for A.I and Robtics, one person should not had full control all over A.I and Robotics, not even company who make those, had to be power and balance check, ensure no power corrupts, while humankind even adult should go school once in while to relearn again and again so they don't forgot how to work together and stay alive when or if A.I and Robotics go wrong or shut down or something. It's all theory, bout a.I and robotics had greater effect than nuclear bomb, I think?
Had a compassionate when you able... :)

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by Chips » Thu, 25. May 23, 13:06

notaterran wrote:
Mon, 22. May 23, 00:29
Dropbox to lay off 500 employees, or about 16% of its workforce
Houston said that the company is also facing an urgency to focus more on artificial intelligence-powered products, and doing so will require hiring workers with different skill sets.
Here's hoping that they hire 500 people. Any predictions? Is this simply a little disruption by a new technology or are we seeing the beginning of a major disruption in the labor market?
It says why they're being laid off in the article though...
Dropbox CEO Drew Houston wrote in the blog post that the company has been reckoning with slowing growth, in part due to a maturation of its business, but also as a result of economic headwinds that are pressuring its customers.

The layoffs are part of a broader company consolidation, Houston wrote, as the company merges its Core and Document Workflows businesses and some other internal team restructuring. Dropbox plans to host internal town halls tomorrow and next week to answer employee questions.
If Facebook et al. started outlining their large layoffs due to "preserve the share price!" and overemployment on market assumptions that then turned out to be false, everyone would *now* be thinking it's due to AI.

The bit that's relevant to AI is that it's going to have to be hiring to focus on that area going forward. Why would it hire 500 people from a consolidation layoff if they don't need 500 folks for their "AI focus". Those 500 aren't going "due to AI advances".


e.g. As mentioned earlier:
BT to axe up to 55,000 jobs by 2030 as it pushes into AI
Sounds like 40% of it's workforce is going to be replaced due to AI!
The company said that over the rest of the decade it expects to complete the most labour intensive part of the rollout of next-generation full-fibre and 5G networks across the UK, meaning fewer engineers will be needed.

While Jansen said that the job cuts would come from across the global business, a “big chunk” of those were expected to be in the UK as fibre broadband and 5G rollout was completed and old 3G and copper technology phased out.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -workforce

Undoubtedly advances are going to have an impact upon the workforce. I think that's something that has always happened though, right? But the amount of articles that are tagging "AI" onto it for headline reading purposes, when it has little bearing on the announcements, is alarming.

Should say, Dropbox are seeming to offer a bit more than "you're fired" layoffs, but again, maybe Twitter did without saying it? It'd be better if they were offered from training too, but it's reasonable to assume they're not some outdated unusable knowledge they have (if engineers) and should be able to source a job as long as the market has some available.
Impacted employees will receive free job placement services and career coaching, according to the blog post, along with up to 16 weeks of severance pay and one additional week per year of Dropbox tenure.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by mr.WHO » Thu, 25. May 23, 19:20

Unemploment might be a grim premise, but unalive is grimmer, especially unalive by being eaten alive by bacteria.

If AI will made us miseable in one area, it can make us happier in other:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-65709834

Falcrack
Posts: 4927
Joined: Wed, 29. Jul 09, 00:46
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by Falcrack » Thu, 25. May 23, 23:48

Any AI geneated content will always require a human or humans in the loop as the ultimate arbiter of what gets published, what decisions get made, etc.

I'm far more concerned about the effect of misguided humans than I am about the potential for AI to result in some job reshuffling. In the end, you will always need people to oversee the AI. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

User avatar
chew-ie
Posts: 5437
Joined: Mon, 5. May 08, 00:05
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by chew-ie » Wed, 31. May 23, 10:47

Might be a good read for this topic - there is an article about the need of treating the future AI development not as some kind of "tech" but something a lot more impactful. I support that notion as we already had some experience with the impact of new eras on society (e.g. horse -> engines). We should at least not blindly stumble into it / let a few companies and/or the masses dictate a - maybe - harmful long-term development.

theguardian.com: Risk of extinction by AI should be global priority, say experts (Hundreds of tech leaders call for world to treat AI as danger on par with pandemics and nuclear war)

Image

Spoiler
Show
BurnIt: Boron and leaks don't go well together...
Königinnenreich von Boron: Sprich mit deinem Flossenführer
Nila Ti: Folgt mir, ihr Kavalkade von neugierigen Kreaturen!

:idea: Pick your poison seed [for custom gamestarts]

User avatar
notaterran
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
x3tc

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by notaterran » Wed, 21. Jun 23, 21:09

Germany’s biggest newspaper is cutting 20% of jobs as it prepares for an AI-powered digital future
A spokesperson for Bild told CNN the job losses associated with the newspaper’s restructuring had “nothing to do with the use of AI,” and that the technology would be used to support journalists in their work.
But then later in the article:
Unfortunately, we also have to part with colleagues who have tasks that are replaced by AI and/or processes in the digital world [...]
It seems that this will be done gradually but eventually (in a few years) the disruption of AI will be impossible to miss. As someone pointed out earlier, robots eventually replaced many workers in assembly plants (Example).
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: AI = Unemployment?

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 21. Jun 23, 21:57

I'd argue that AI/bots were already pushing staff reduction at various news media for several years.

Google bot or similar was able to formulate, translate, proofread and add pictured for generic news articles for quite some time.

It's one of the reasons why news media are more and more trash'y, shallow and Twitter like.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”