Recent comments in /f/Futurology

SyntheticDreams_ t1_jc51chu wrote

AI generated content is pretty rapidly cranking out decent advice and emotional support, though. It wouldn't surprise me if the empathy professions begin to get phased out at least in part in the next few years. Especially roles like crisis line workers where it's entirely a support role without a clinical or diagnostic focus.

1

TheLastSamurai t1_jc4r93p wrote

This articulated quite clearly why I’m really pessimistic about this technology. If you have 100 units of wealth for 100 people and say 70 to to the top 10, what if you make 1000 units of wealth for that same number of people, more wealth right? Except here it will be 990/1000 to the top 5/100 people. Not exact terms but illustrating a concept. Not good.

1

dudpixel t1_jc4ituj wrote

Once ai can write its own code it isn't just game over for programmers. It's game over for everyone. An ai that can replace programmers can also code a better ai, and with enough evolution can program any software anywhere, including the software that powers every business in the world.

Anyone who imagines that programmers will lose their jobs but the rest of the world will keep going as normal...doesn't understand how much of the world runs on software.

Programming will be one of the last jobs replaced by ai.

In the meantime ai will provide more and more powerful tools to allow programmers to create more powerful software in less time. Hopefully with less bugs.

3

Tetondan t1_jc3fsem wrote

What is a programmer? I would say in the most naive understanding of the term it is someone that inputs instructions for computers to perform. Who's to say that a Natural language isn't just another obfuscation on computer programming languages? As is, no programmer is writing raw machine instructions, we are all using languages built on top of each other (usually) multiple layers deep. I don't see current "AI" as being anything more than another abstraction.

12

3SquirrelsinaCoat t1_jc3dd42 wrote

Think tank papers serve a good role, and many of the points the author lays out are valid. Most of them actually. However, she's not really adding anything to what is already an ongoing discussion across many industries on precisely the points she makes. Big picture, yeah she's bang on. More immediate picture, what does a "reset" look like? How does one concoct a reset? Get all the fortune 500 together and ask them to sign a pledge? Move a piece of legislation through Congress? A year from now, we're going to have much more powerful versions of what is today already powerful. Laws are not equipped to address it (won't get passed anyway); industry guidelines are only as good as a company's word.

So part of my reaction this article, which again is good, is, "yeah, and? What's your plan?" Just repeating what everyone else is already discussing, even if eloquently phrased, comes up a bit short for a think tank.

3