Safe professions
Safe professions
Thanks to @deeply_moving_queef@lemmy.ml for finding the original author:
257 comments
-
Automation and job replacement is a good thing. The reason it feels bad is because we've tied the ability to satisfy our basic needs to employment. In an economic model that actually isn't a dystopian hellscape, robots replacing jobs is something to celebrate.
And to switch our economic model to one in which a person can thrive without pissing the vast majority of our lives away on the grind; we just need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps!
-
This is so important.
An aspect of post scarcity is that people shouldn't have to work. AGI might allow that; LLM is starting to fill some niches.
The problem is how it's being done. Rather than benefiting society as a whole, it's enriching a few. In an ideal world, people whose jobs are replaced should get a stipend. We should all be eagerly awaiting that time when our jobs are replaced and we get a paycheck - maybe a little reduced - but now we're free to pursue our interests. If that means doing your old job, only now it's bespoke, artisan work, great.
The other missing factors are free energy and limitless resources; but we're making progress on energy, but resources are an issue with no solution on the horizon. Plus, we're killing the planet by just existing, so there's that.
We have a lot of problems to solve but AI is part of the solution, except that it's being done wrong. And expensively.
-
but resources are an issue with no solution on the horizon.
We've got tons of resources, and the means the produce more. The problem is that's not going to make some people lots and lots of money, so they don't do it.
Scarcity is not a problem of "can't" right now, it's a problem of "won't".
-
We have a lot of problems to solve but AI is part of the solution, except that it's being done wrong. And expensively.
There's also a conversation to be had about which jobs shouldn't be automated, either because current technology isn't suitable, or because it might never be suitable. And I'd say that pretty much everything that we are calling 'AI' right now falls under that - I'll say that robots are part of the solution, but I don't think 'AI' is.
-
-
-
-
What's a personal?
-
Came here to say this... Personal?
This strip was made by AI, wasn't it? WASN'T IT??!?!?!
-
It 100% is the new 4o image generation which appears very good in producing crisp panel comics with readable text exactly like this.
The most scary thing is all the people responding with denial, oblivious to this not being human made.
-
It might be. The doctor ear has different colors. And each robot has a slight difference in shading and shape. An human artist will just simply copy paste all the robots.
-
-
It's very human.
-
Nothing personnel
-
Its just business.
-
-
My bet is personal assistant / personal trainer
-
there a whole Black Mirror episode dedicated to the idea of an AI personal assistant. We may not be that far yet, but we're more than halfway there. We've come a long way from Clippy.
-
-
Personal trainers are called simply personal in Brazil, and the original comic is in Brazilian Portuguese. This is an AI translated version.
-
-
"Personal?" Personal what?
-
We will never know, because this comic was produced by AI.
-
I'm presuming "personal assistant" and it got cut off due to being itself AI-generated slop.
-
Maybe it’s supposed to be “personnel”? HR hiring processes is dominated by bots now.
-
KOLANAKI
-
-
Personal is a career?
-
Probably a hallucination of the AI that generated this
-
The original meme this was copied from is Brazilian:
-
I assumed it was supposed to be Personal Assistant, but the text got cut off.
-
- Credit to the original artist.
-
This... Almost looks like the op of this post used AI to translate and change the art style of this comic.
-
Replaced by AI:
traductorAlso modified the art style to make it less violent and subversive, so cross "artist" of that list as well.
With the original, we clearly understand that it should all have been filled with humans, but there was a progression in the center line where AI (killed and) replaced professions that were always thought to be irreplaceable by AI.
-
-
Seems the translated variant misses a big point of the original artist too, notice how the gun slowly comes into view? It's trying to make a point that the replacement isn't quite organic, but rather forced on us. Probably would have been better to just translate the text in place and include the rightful credit.
-
Ironic. The translator and artist were the first ones to be killed, and now we got this bastardized AI "translation" that's actually an entirely different image, but worse.
This is why so many were confused about "personal," I believe it's a borrowed term in Brazil that popularly means personal trainer.
Not personnel, not HR, not personal assistant, nor an AI hallucination, even as some confidently claimed them, all because the original work was discarded for a shitty alternative, much like workers themselves.
-
Thank you for finding it. I will leave his IG here and in description, since my original post was just a copy, unfortunately.
-
I'm deeply moved
-
-
Why is lemmy filling up with AI posts? Its worse that this is on c/comicstrips
-
It’s not a Lemmy thing, it’s a global phenomenon. Humans are using AI more than ever, and believe it or not, humans use Lemmy.
-
I think the point of this comic in particular is to show that AI is already taking over art but since it's done badly, at what cost is it taking over these jobs?
-
When on c/comicstrips, i dont think its unreasonable for people to expect the art to be from real people
-
-
-
People under Capitalism: Oh no, our jobs are being automated. 😱😭
People under Socialism: Finally! Now that our jobs are being automated, I can chill and watch TV, maybe go on a vacation. 😎🏖🍺🎉🎊🎇🎆
(Btw, USSR/Russia and PRC are not socialist, don't get confused)
-
But you're living in capitalism. Unless government forces billionaires to fund social programs, they will just keep getting richer, just like it's happening right now (if we ignore the crashing markets, but you get the idea)
-
That’s why we used to tax the morbidly rich at a 90% rate in the 50s
-
-
-
AI generated slop. Reported
-
Why is this AI comic upvoted as much?? There are mysteries I will never get..
-
I think folks are genuinely unable to tell. The poster, who's also a mod, did not know it was AI generated
-
-
-
As an automechanic, my job will never replace by AI, but instead we're fucked by low wages and the black box automobile has slowly become.
-
Any personals here?
-
I wanted robots to do my menial unpleasant chores for me so I'd have more time to do art, writing, and analytics. I didn't want robots to do all the art, writing, and analytics so I had more time for chores & menial tasks 😭
-
The rich will always have money to pay better people to make beautiful things for them
Just be useful to the rich and you'll survive
Just like they planned it
-
-
I just watched a movie (Geostorm) where these obviously super wealthy people were in a skyscraper and the movies like "oh no, they might die if no one stops this!"
Good? I'm more concerned about all the people below them getting swept away. These rich fucks should finally feel fear for fucking once.
-
Zero argument here
-
-
-
-
Correct. But it has made Translators more productive so we need fewer of them. But the productivity gains will create other jobs and so on. So it's not as clear cut as people think. What will likely happen is that some jobs will vanish (anyone here remember elevator operators?) while some jobs will change and in other cases new professions will be created.
-
I have done professional translation, as a side gig. The usual workflow involves a first run through machine translation (Deepl is my favorite), then opening the machine translation in a translation program (I use CafeTran), which is used to make the second pass, by the human translator. This program doesn't translate (they can use one of the main translation engines) but provides a bunch of tools to make the translation refining process easier.
Pure machine translation is a hack. AI can't grasp nuances, contexts, etc... You will often see many words that may have several meanings, used incorrectly, for example.
-
Yeah I find most of the AI art generators are just allowing people who aren't artistic to make their own stuff which they wouldn't have paid someone for anyways if AI wasn't there, they would have just gone without, so it's not really a lose to artists.
-
There's a small, relatively low value market of commissioned online art that has been and will continue to be impacted. People who may have paid $50-60 for a (furry) OC will start going to AI image gens as the process becomes more refined and allows them to add detail to the end result without much effort.
-
-
Having worked for a software company that needed translation services, I can confirm that translation software is indeed very necessary.
People would notice when the word "date" is interpreted as "date on a calendar" in one file and "romantic event" in another, but AI sure doesn't.
Even Google's apps have broken Dutch translations by reusing existing strings for different contexts that don't mean the same elsewhere. "Search" gets translated to different words depending on if it's used a noun or a verb, for fucks sake!
-
-
-
It's true that it can't replace a skilled profession. But I honestly believe you could replace most middle management with AI already. Of course the bar is incredibly low on that.
-
-
-
Everyone thinks their own line of work is safe because everyone knows the nuances of their own job. But the thing that gets you is that the easier a job gets the fewer people are needed and the more replaceable they are. You might not be able to make a robot cashier, but with the scan and go mobile app you only need an employee to wave a scanner (to check that some random items in your cart are included in the barcode on your receipt) and the time per customer to do that is fast enough that you only need one person, and since anyone can wave a scanner you don’t have much leverage to negotiate a raise.
-
This is the lump of labor fallacy. The error you are making is assuming that there is a fixed quantity of work that needs to be performed. When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices. This enables more people to afford those services. There's a reason people don't own just 2 or 3 sets of clothes anymore.
-
When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices.
I'm sorry, but that's some hilarious Ayn Rand thinking. Prices didn't go down in grocery stores that added self-checkout, they just made more profit. Companies these days are perfectly comfortable keeping the price the same (or raising them) and just cutting their overhead.
Don't get me wrong, if there are things they could get more profit by selling more, then they likely would. But I think those items are few and far between. Everything else they just make more money with less workers.
-
-
-
"Theft" only applies to the poor. Rich assholes and their megacorps will pay judges to tell you so
-
Those images look nothing alike unless you stop looking beyond the contrasted regions... Which, fair enough, could indicate someone taking the outline of the original, but you hardly need AI to do that (Tracing is a thing that has existed for a while), and it's certainly something human artists do as well both as practice, but also just as artistic reinterpretation (Re-using existing elements in different, transformative ways).
It's hard to argue the contrast of an image would be subjective enough to be someone's ownership, whether by copyright or by layman's judgement. It easily meets the burden of significant enough transformation.
It's easy to see why, because nobody would confuse it with the original. Assuming the original is the right, it looks way better and more coherent. If this person wanted to just steal from this Arcipello, they're doing a pretty bad job.
EDIT: And I doubt anyone denies the existence of thieves, whether using AI or not. But this assertion that one piece can somehow make sweeping judgements about multi-faceted tech by this point at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are using, from hobbyist tinkerers to technical artists, is ridiculous.
-
AI can absolutely produce copyrighted content if it's prompted to. Name drop an artist in Midjourney and you will be able to prompt their style - see this list of artists and prompted images. So you can just tweak the settings a bit to heavily weight their name, generally describe the composition of the work you're looking to approximate, and you can absolutely produce something close to their original works.
The image is wrong because the original artwork is not stolen. It is part of a dataset by LAION (or another similar dataset, basically a text-image pair where the image is linked at its original source). To train the imagegen, its company had to download a temporary copy, which is exempt from infringement by copyright law. There is no original artwork somewhere in a database accessible by Midjourney, just the numerical relationship generated by the image-text pair it learned from.
On the other hand, AI can obviously produce content in violation of copyright - like here. But that's specifically being prompted by the user. You can see other examples of this with Grok generating Mickey Mouse and Simpsons characters. As of right now, copyright violations are the legal responsibility of the users generating the content - not the AI itself.
-
You are speaking bollocks, there are already many lawsuits by artists against the so called Ai engines, there are boundaries on how much you can copy from a specific artwork, logo, design or whatever, for example if you take the coca cola logo and slightly change it even if it doesn't say coca cola you will still face the laws of copyright infringement, nobody denies the existence of thieves, so that's why people do whatever they can to protect their work
-
-
-
When I see these kinds of posts I just look over at the vibe coders and just laugh harder than any joke about ai taking our jobs
-
Except Vibe-Coders are kicking back & sipping margaritas & your job is still gone
-
I was extremely skeptical so I looked into it and it absolutely does not work. There was also a guy on YouTube who basically tried to make a Minecraft clone with Vibe coding and it just fell apart almost instantly.
All I was trying to do was get it to set up a basic scene in UE5 with some lighting effects and import a model of the building from the assets library. Nope, did not work. I didn't even bother trying to implement game logic as it was so clearly a waste of time. The amount of time I spent trying to get it to do basic stuff, stuff that you would be able to do in UE5 after half an hour of training, I could have made significant progress on a gray box by then.
-
-
-
-
-
The image looks like AI...
-
Makes sense, the artist panel has a robot after all.
-
The easiest way that i have found to check if an image is AI is to look for repeating things and see if they are consistent. A real artist would have no reason to draw the robot multiple times or change the font slightly after each letter
-
-
I am starting to think this is AI, but I am not sure. The irony.
-
It 100% is AI, this is ChatGPT's hilariously identifiable comic style.
-
The lawyer has skin-brown teeth.
-
I thought those were lips, but looking at the others you're right.
-
-
The easiest way that i have found to check if an image is AI is to look for repeating things and see if they are consistent. A real artist would have no reason to draw the robot multiple times or change the font slightly after each letter
-
Oh man is translation not possible with AI. You have no idea how little languages have in common. A lot of terms don't mean a thing, but combine concepts you don't have or associate to point at a thing.
My dad said, about learning a new language, ''cat means cat, not gato, don't translate'' and I think that holds up pretty well from my experience.
-
Oh man is translation not possible with AI.
i mean, it's pretty good at it? A lot of human translators even struggle with the same problem, the AI is just a lot faster, and significantly more versatile. That's arguably one of it's strongest areas of performance, is translation, because it's so well suited to it.
-
You think it's OK because it spits out grammatically correct language on your end, but if you spoke both languages you'd get how it fails. Look at translations of Korean comics if you'd like to see how badly mechanical translation is when it's a connected story across multiple chapters, I was reading a comic where a character said he liked the elegant and sophisticated sound of calling a lightning strike skill ''bolt'' instead of whatever he was calling it ''lighting strike'' I think. It took me a while to realize what or whoever translated it didn't know how to look at the context of the translation and find a English word that English speakers would find at least old fashioned if not archaic and of course longer or more poetic sounding. It's like the whole thing when JRPGs can't figure out if they should localize names by just spelling out the phonetic sounds in Roman letters or actually translating the meaning of the name, or a thing no one's ever done and find a name in a European language family that has the same meaning.
Just like the AI art, it's not replacing good translation, it's replacing hack job translations, it's replacing mediocre and predictable art. I really don't care if someone uses AI in the pre-production or some post production functions, just not the part you need a human for, the actual creativity, there's an adage in 3D animation ''it you let the computer do it, it's gonna suck.'' You can let the computer do inbetweens, but you better be giving it nothing near a key frame. It has to really be the very least important frames.
-
AI currently completely does not understand the context of translation when it comes to visual media. Whereas a human translator can use that for additional interpretation
-
It's still doing a consistently poorer job than a skilled translator, because it has no concept of nuance or tone. I encounter people getting themselves worked up over information in AI-translated news articles, so I go back to the source material and discover it's mistranslated, under-translated, or just completely omitted parts of sentences. It's very Purple Monkey Dishwasher.
The quality is better than it was a decade ago, sure, but that's a pretty low bar. Back then it was gibberish, nowadays it's natural-sounding phrases with incorrect translations.
-
-
-
No one said that AI was doing the jobs it's replaced people in well.
-
I mean given that "AI" are language models built on context and relations between words I'd argue that that's one of the more applicable jobs compared to what's listed in OP. With none of them is it capable of doing well, but I just wouldn't argue that translation is outside that realm of what's listed above
-
The problem is that the AI doesn't understand cultural context. I dunno where you're from so pardon me for assuming you're likely an English speaker.
A good translation isn't just to translate what the text says but to communicate the same idea to the reader or viewer within their cultural context. A good example is Disney's Aladdin where Robin Williams improvised A LOT during the recording sessions and most of his jokes are full of contemporary American cultural context. I'm Danish and most Danish kids didn't understand these American jokes so our translators decided to switch out some jokes with other jokes that conveyed similar points but within a Danish cultural context.
An AI cannot do that. It will translate what is written and it will be fucking nonsense to the receiver because they don't understand the context or the references.
AI is only good at translating as long as what is written can be translated 1:1. And even then I sometimes wonder. Because as a Dane I have noticed how terrible Word is at Danish when it comes to corrections. It follows English language context and will underline correct words in red and suggest alternative that aren't real Danish. For example, Danish words are slammed together while in English they are separated = skolelærer - school teacher. Word could very well decide to red line skolelærer and suggest to you that you should separate the word and make it two = skole lærer. But in Danish that would nullify the meaning. Now it is no longer a school teacher but a school and a teacher.
And I have seen on streaming services like Netflix and on steam how they lazily threw descriptions into a translator and it is just the most broken Danish I have ever read. It is so fucked because the newer generations of Danes who use these services are being influenced by them to learn incorrect Danish.
I have very limited trust in AI to do a better job at it since it isn't Danish people that have trained it and it doesn't understand our culture, our history nor how we communicate with one another. Everything that comes out of digital text based platforms from the US is our language filtered and massacred through US context. It is very very bad in my opinion and incredibly lifeless and soulless.
It would be the same the other way around btw. Me writing a piece of text with significant Danish cultural context and humor, slang and references would be translated into total nonsense for an English speaker, I'm sure.
-
-
You can't be serious, buddy. I'm translating an entire episode with ai and it's turning out better than the Netflix translation!
-
-
I'm not mad at translation no longer being a viable career choice. I'm mad at capitalism making it so.
-
Maybe I'm not super up to date on AI stuff, but I worked as a translator for a year, and AI (they used ChatGPT and DeepL) still made a bunch of mistakes that you'll immediately notice when you speak the language. It feels like their training input had a bunch of older, Google-translated articles in them that were just bad. Maybe an AI trained specifically for translation with curated learning material and a "teacher" who corrects mistakes can get closer to replacing human translators, but it'd still miss the cultural context of certain words and phrases that are in a translator's passive vocabulary, at least in less widely spread languages.
That being said, it's definitely harder to make a career out of translating because companies who don't know any better just use AI instead. As long as they get their point across (and make money), they don't care about the finer details.
-
Sure, a skilled human is still better at the job. But you don't always need to capture every nuance. And AI does it at the fraction of the cost.
I see this with lots of German product descriptions on big store fronts like Amazon. They often seem entirely machine translated. It's not great, but "good enough" and serviceable.
Machine translation also increasingly shifts the process from the sender of the message to the recipient. It used to be that the web page of a Vietnamese company was inaccessible if you didn't speak Vietnamese or they specifically had an English version. Nowadays a visitor can choose to get the entire site translated automatically (by the browser, for instance). Is it as good as the translation by an expert? Of course not. But it costs the company nothing at all and the visitor a negligible amount. And it works for a plethora of languages.
That's another (invisible) way that the world needs less and less translators. I wrote this post in English but for all I know someone could be reading it in French or Bengali. No further input required from my side.
-
CAT-tools such as Trados killed the market. AI is just the natural conseguence.
-
-
I worked with a translator yesterday. She teaches courses, but she said she does translation because the money is good. I've worked with her for a while at this point, as well as dozens of other translators, on nearly a daily basis. They're very much still in demand.
-
Ye why make money by learning languages.
???
-
You missed the point by a mile. Translation agencies pocket most of the money and pay peanuts
-
-
-
Man itl be nice when surgeons can be fully replaced with robots.
-
There are some thing I would not mind seeing gone, like managers, doctors that don't actually want to treat anyone, and begging a Psych to at least give you an ADHD test.
-
-
How safe a profession is depends on how much more expensive replacing robots are than replacing people
-
I ve seen robot in exbibition failing just because of working all day, never forget maintainace also
-
-
Mfw my girlfriend finishes studying translation in 2022 just in time for AI to come in
-
Synchronous translators are still very much in demand, as well as technical and legal translators.
-
That's good. Shame it doesn't pay enough to actually warrant being allowed to stay in the country.
-
Yep, I interact with a couple different ones two or three times a week. I see them more than I used to.
-
-
-
Translators are never going to be replaced. The quality of a translation made by humans is much better
-
Translators have and are continuing to lose their jobs. Generative AI-based translations don’t have to be better than human ones for this to happen, they only need to be good enough to cheapen the overall translation process. For example, via post-editing, where AI does the initial translation for a translator to vet. Sure, human translators are still part of the process, but on an industry level the need for human translators has decreased.
Sadly, I see the same logic as above applying to many other industries. So our critique of AI must not be predicated on its ability to perform better than humans, but instead on its ability to cheapen the overall cost of tasks performed by humans. This wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if translators were properly supported in career transitioning, or if AI-induced cost savings were directed to something like a universal basic income, but that is not the economic reality we live in under capitalism.
-
So does journalist, because their job isn't only writing article but to go out there to find stories to write, even on the frontline of war. It's the slob tabloid and "based on source by another press" article getting replaced.
Artist though, their income is gonna get cut because ai plagiarism mean they're getting less and less commission.
-
That's half true.
The problem journalists have is that investigative work and going outside the office is expensive, and with the collapse of print media, most of their jobs have been replace by this slob tabloid/journalism by press release.
So that's all at risk.
-
Im a translator so I can only speak for my profession
-
-
Fucking YouTube trying to translate everything into shitty French for me.
'The Honey scam' becomes 'The honey scam' in French (L'arnaque du miel), as in honey from bees. The "AI" can't even make the difference between a common and proper noun.
Reddit does the same through my Google searches. The original post is in English but Google and Reddit shows it to me in dubious French. It's quite obvious that it has been machine translated.
However bad translations unfortunately doesn't seem to bother a lot of people, nor stop the big corps to push them as much as possible.
-
I saw a similar issue on a product where the Spanish wording obviously came from a computer translation.
"Made in Turkey" was written as "Hecho en pavo."
Pavo is Spanish for turkey, the animal. Turquía is Spanish for Turkey, the country. A human, even a non-fluent speaker such as myself, would never make that mistake.
-
-
It depends on how the management cares about the result or\and specifically needs someone responsible and with a certain reputation. International communications, e.g. UN sessions or the likes where highly trained humans do parallel translation, wouldn't be replaced at all, because a slight tonal shift in how they translate political stuff can cause a disasterous misunderstanding. Technical translation in industrial stuff shouldn't be too, for each sphere has it's specific bunch of therminology on each side, but here we are. And with arts\media, reputable companies with big money would still hire translators, but some would default to AI-unless-we-called-out mode.
-
-
Meanwhile my (college btw) teacher suggests us to use ChatGPT if we need help. Bro wants to replace himself.
-
I genuinely wonder if at some point someone is going to try to replace my job with AI. I'd be surprised if it worked, but not surprised if anyone is dumb enough to try, considering I do IT work, physically onsite too, so I don't just reset passwords over the phone or anything, I go to desks and setup equipment, repair hardware, troubleshoot software, the whole nine yards.
-
I work in horticulture and tend to plants- transplanting into different sized pots, pruning, yknow, physically interacting with plants. I also monitor the environment of the greenhouse- temperature, humidity, amount of water in the soil. Recently my boss has implemented ai and sensors to read the room and adjust the humidity and the temperature and monitor the water levels automatically. It doesn't work very well, because there arent sensors evwrywhere, and some parts of the greenhouse get better ventilation than others, so the temperature fluctuates. Me and my crew know where the hot spots are, the robots don't. The plants are suffering. We are doing extra work and killing off more plants on average than we did a few months ago.
About 1/3 of my crew has quit or been fired over the last year, and none of them have been replaced.
I've asked for a raise because I'm doing a lot more work with a lot less people, but they don't have the budget for me, since we just implemented all this ai that's gonna make my job so much easier.
I got written up for having a bad attitude (aka asking for a raise) and am now on probation at work. I am almost certainly about to lose my physical labor job to a robot and.it is blowing my fucking mind.
Take care xx
-
No job is safe from AI or robotic automation. They might not be able to do it well, but that won't stop greedy and/or cheap businesses from trying.
-
Oh, I am sure someone will try to replace me at some point with an AI (just not where I currently work, they are extremely suspicious of AI, even blocking websites that use AI just in case) and I am sure it will go poorly. Sucks that is already happening where you work, but on the semi-bright side, doubt that company will survive doing this.
-
-
-
If we were not ruled by tech oligarchs, and the control & benefits of AI were not concentrated among a privileged few, AI replacing our jobs would be a good thing.
-
I not sure what personal is, but I'm curious, are there stats on job losses for artists, translators or journalist since AI?
I would use AI for some tangential stuff, like translating a menu, but not sure how many would use AI in a place where they'd previously hired a translator.
-
Jobs in journalism have been in decline for decades, the rise of AI is just another nail in the coffin of quality journalism. Hard to prove fault, but it's not helping.
-
-
Yeah sure, they will replace artists with their own stolen intellectual property which they mashed up together and spit it out back to their faces with the fake name of Ai, Congrats! humanity is definitely getting dumber and dumber every day since it cant see something like this
-
Cooking is something that requires advanced robotics or some kind of heavily modular factory-like automated meal production line, not AI. Though AI certainly could assist in the development of such.
Drivers are being actively replaced right before our eyes.
A lot of Lawyer work is already being heavily automated, even without AI. Outside of that its "technically" replaceable with AI but on a literal legal level not likely currently possible. I think automating some aspects of being a lawyer might be beneficial but certain elements would be down right dystopian if fully automated.
Doctor work being automated is also already being done, but this is arguably a very good thing, as it maybe holds the key to a lot of medical breakthroughs and might unlock the potential to sort all that personal medical data people collect ever since that became a thing. And largely might help significantly reduce the cost of highly effective personal healthcare, given sufficient time.
Teacher work probably could be partially automated but getting kids to pay attention to a lesson, discipline, safety, etc would likely require a human to be around if only for liability.
-
modular factory-like automated meal production line, not AI.
Define AI... LLMs are just a part of that.
-
Yeah, Artificial Intelligence is pretty broad category of technologies, even so, robotics and automation is not AI. You could pair a robot or an automated factory with an AI of some kind, or use an AI to design them, and they're related to each other in that they involve computer technology. Still, not the same thing.
A robotic arm in an car factory is a robot, but it doesn't have AI in it, they're usually given a set of commands to repeat.
A rube goldberg machine is technically automated once initialized. Its not AI.
-
-
-
Translation is too complex - language changes too fast - cultural context can not me adopted well - see every translation app that tries other languages than the most common ones worldwide
-
AI bad
-
Yes, yes it is.
-
Not sure if I'd agree here. I think that used properly, AI definitely has great use-cases, especially in areas of science, like medicine.
As with any new "invention", there is the tech-bros that jump at it first chance they get and try to push it into anything. We had that with blockchain, we had that with crypto, we had it with web3 and now we have it with AI.
The tech isn't bad at all, it's actually extremely useful, but the use-cases it's put to work at aren't.
-
Luddite
-
-
-
I still think that all jobs are, in general, safe for the foreseeable future. But we will be expected to use AI tools and just produce more and more, so that a few people will gain more and more resources and power.
E.g. as engineers we will do less and less actual planning, but we will run AIs like it were a team of engineer slaves.
And I think this will be similar for other branches. A music composer will run AIs to compose parts of a song, adjust it, readjust other parts, till the song is good. I mean, afaik this is already how much of it works.
-
I believe that a few jobs will be hard hit. Things like first level phone customer support or service are probably going to be decimated, keeping humans for 2nd or 3rd level.
A similar thing happened with the irruption of the PC. In a few short years, the majority of professional typist jobs disappeared.
-
Entry level at most jobs will be hit. If you basically exist to do grunt work that somebody else assigns and will “approve” before going out, AI may replace you. I would not want to be a junior marketing communications person.
-
AI has sucked for years and that didn’t stop companies from trying to replace customer service with AI.
-
-
-
Am I supposed to read this as simultaneous (those jobs are currently safe.... for now, the others are not) or progressive (all these jobs are human/skilled and halfway they get replaced by robots)..?
I suppose either way it's commenting that you can't take your position for granted. AI isn't coming to replace you, but it is going to evolve your field, and workers that don't adapt will be supplanted by those that do.
-
Probably the latter (If you see the original comic this was based on), but probably a little bit of both as you said.
-
-
Teachers, drivers, and lawyers are all very replaceable by AI. And, with some investment in automation, so are cooks.
-
drivers
or...
TRAINSSSSSS 🚂🚃🚃🚃💨
-
If you mean proper definition of the word AI, then of course, everyone are, AI by definition can do everything human can.
If you mean modern slop generators or narrowly trained models, then no, some professionals can use it to make their lives slightly easier, but that's it.
Just to be clear, the proper AGI doesn't exist, and we aren't closer to the understanding how to achieve it than we were in the age before we discovered electricity. Possibly further, if everyone will continue to be mesmerised by a chatbot -
Yeah interestingly I watched a video where a robotics specialist said they believed AI would take jobs long before the new generation of robots do. Robots are hard.
-
Can't we skip that and go straight to replicators instead?
-
Star Trek or Stargate?
-
-
-
I assume you, teaching as the profession that we have today is not at all safe.
-
As a barkeeper, I still feel very safe.
-
-
Still feelin safe
-
-
-
Amusingly, cook is probably the safest of those positions for the time being. The physicality and necessity of presence makes it harder to automate. Lawyer, doctor, and teacher can be done remotely, and is based largely on knowledge, so they are prime targets. People are already trying it. Drivers you could see being done remotely if we had faster, more ubiquitous, net connections, so it's doable as well. It's basically already happening. But cooking... AI doesn't seem like it would give you the right kind of inputs and outputs to do that any easier/faster/cheaper. It's already possible to make a food vending machine. The limitations of vending machines aren't really that they need an easier interface on their database. AI won't really help there. And to go beyond that and try to make an AI powered restaurant probably wouldn't be profitable. It's barely profitable to run a regular restaurant most of the time. If you try to put in the probable millions to automate a restaurant, it'd probably go the same way as the self-checkout lanes at stores, which is to say poorly.
-
Actually have all of the jobs I would think the safest are doctors and lawyers. When your life and liberty are on the line you really don't want an emotionless machine you want a human.
Years ago I had to have surgery on my neck to remove a benign tumor, and I absolutely wasn't worried, I was definitely worried it would hurt but I wasn't worried it would go wrong and I'd end up getting a major artery cut, because I trusted the person doing it, because they came and talked to me. I wouldn't absolutely not trust a robot to do surgery, even if logically the robot would probably be better than the human.
-
It depends on the type of doctor and lawyer's service. Some will remain with humans. Some will be a welcome free-up of their time to focus on the more unusual (not solvable by regressing to the mean) cases. There are many doctor's appointments that boil down to 'You have the flu. Here's a beg off note for your shitty boss. Go back to bed.' And there are many attorneys' consultations that boil down to 'I have taken down what you want to say, and now I will translate it into legalese.'
As for the trust, that comes from expectations. You trust a human because human surgeons are the norm. You don't have buddies who had a robot remove their appendix. If the AI is competent, eventually that would be as normal to a patient as buying something from a vending machine.
However, I suspect surgery in particular is another of those things where it'll take an absolute mountain of training data and a lot of risk of human health/life to even attempt, so it's a long way off compared to the simple 'GP writes a referral' stuff.
-
Watch Prometheus by Ridley Scott, there is a scene in that movie which is on topic of the subject discussed here
-
-
-
Everything can be automated, just with lower quality, speed, and a high up front and ongoing cost.
But for a large segment of jobs, no one cares about quality. Speed can be increased by increasing the number of parallel automatons, thus cost. If you really want to get rid of all work, raise the minimum wage to $100/hour for one year. Don't tell anyone that it will only be a year. By the end of the year, almost every job will be automated.
-
Drivers were on the edge for a long time. Lawyers are on the edge for the past 2-3 years. Cooks are probably the closest ones to be on the edge too.
-
How drivers were on the edge?
-
Self driving cars have been threatened for years. Trucks are practically here (on private roads currently). The desire is strong.
-
Self driving lorries have been in development stage for over 5 years. I don't count teslas into that cause on overwhelming average cars are driven not as work. Truck, busse and train drivers were under attack for a long time.
-
-
-
Technically speaking it's opposite than in the picture. The professions replaced by robots in the picture are in fact not replacable because they require emotional awareness. On the other hand professions in the picture that represent humans can be replaced by robots because they only require data.
-
Teachers and physicians do not require emotional awareness?
-
House has proven time and time again that bedside manners don't matter if you're right. 😌
-
This is a mistake that many people will make, and it will be decades before they realize what they've done.
I teach elementary school. While most of the things I'm accountable for on paper are academic, most of my actual time is spent helping my students understand how to be functional humans. Problem-solving skills. Interpersonal skills. Self-control. Empathy. Self-esteem. In early grades, motor skills like how to hold a pencil or use scissors.
When we put a whole generation of kids in computerized AI schools (because it's not really an "if" any more), we will see a huge effect in the real world, but probably not until after they graduate and have to start dealing with people in different work environments. And by then, we'll be totally screwed.
Of course, the 1% will still have their kids in real schools with real teachers, because they already know that the very products they tout to the masses are actually detrimental to child development.
-
-
-
-
As a designer, this remains irrelevant to me. Ai is just a tool.
-
I don’t know in which design field you work, but 4o can already generate impressive saas landing pages at this point. Still bland work but could suffise for some, you should see for yourself.
-
So can I
-
-
-
This is incorrect.
Give AI a few more years and ots a great teacher for adults.
Baker and lawyer? Easy. As soon as AI get capable robot bodies they can do "homemade food" with robotic efficiency. And knowing legal texts and such stuff? They are machines. Indexing, cross referenceing, contextually identifying and comparing large data will be super easy to them once they get more memory and no l9nger hallucinate information.
AI is in its infancy.
People who say AI won't get as good or better than us humans at basically anything will be in for a hard awakening in about 10 years.
The humans are basically comparing their industry best against an AI baby learning to walk when looking at potential of growth.
-
You missed the point and wrote like 3.5 paragraphs. Maybe AI could summarise for you. I asked Gemini to give it a go:
This comic strip conveys a cautionary message about the potential overconfidence of humans regarding the irreplaceable nature of their professions in the face of advancing technology, specifically artificial intelligence. Here's a breakdown:
- The first five panels show various people confidently stating that their professions (cook, driver, lawyer, doctor, teacher) are inherently human, rely on talent, and therefore cannot be replaced. They seem to believe they are immune to automation or technological disruption.
- The remaining four panels reveal identical, faceless robots labeled with other professions (personal, journalist, artist, translator). This visually suggests that even roles considered creative, nuanced, or requiring "human touch" are susceptible to being taken over by AI or robots.
- The humor lies in the dramatic irony. The characters' confident assertions are juxtaposed with the stark reality of the robots, highlighting the potential for human hubris in underestimating the capabilities of emerging technologies. In essence, the comic warns against complacency and suggests that many professions, even those requiring creativity and human interaction, might not be as safe from automation as people believe. It prompts reflection on the evolving nature of work and the potential impact of AI on various fields.
-
I see.
Interesting then that I've seen such an very similar image used on reddit in the opposite way.
So perhaps thats why I expected it to be the same here
-
257 comments