- cross-posted to:
- onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone
cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/post/1346226
You must log in or register to comment.
I know people that lost their job to AI. So that first one is just an old fashioned lie.
Just pointing out that these 2 are not necessarily contradicting statements. Just because it hasn’t taken any jobs yet, doesn’t mean it won’t take any in the next 10 years. Not that I really want to believe those numbers though. But yeah as others have pointed out, these studies need to be taken with a grain of salt.
The 97M number is ridiculous no matter how you slice it. That’s over half of America’s working population.
Look into who funds the Yale lab that the first study comes from. The majority of them have stakes in AI tech or AI companies.
That makes no sense to me… the main reason the AI bubble exists, is the drooling of CEOs to eliminate costly people with digital slaves.
If I had an investment in AI, I may downplay the harm a bit but I would want to show that indeed those savings are possible.
This Yale study shows, all AI is doing is burning money for everyone which is very bad for their alleged investment
Yep. And pretty much every “academic” study is funded by the department of war/imperialism.
This is “science” under capitalism. It’s 99% grifts and violence.
Pretty strange for Yale to be promoting AI by saying it isn’t replacing jobs at the moment. If were invested in AI and paying for a fake study, that is not the result I would want to hear.
https://vger.to/lemmy.world/post/37055762
Apparently. It’ll be a battle of the peer reviewed studies?
Apparently. It’ll be a battle of the peer reviewed studies?
Yeah that’s the state of “science” under capitalism. Grift vs grift.
I am more inclined toward the Stanford study.
A lot of the problem with the Yale headline is that it wasn’t actually studying job loss in relation to AI so much as it was trying to prove/disprove claims that “AI will take all the jobs”. And so the way it goes about “proving” it’s thesis so to speak is to look at what jobs have been eliminated from the workforce.
The jobs that CEO’s have largely claimed will be taken by AI are menial jobs like fast food work. And lots of companies have in fact tried to do such a thing, looking at you Taco Bell. In most cases the AI implemented at drive-thrus etc have been rolled back because of backlash and lackluster performance.
The Stanford study was actually more trying to prove/disprove the real world affect on the job market, and who was the most detrimentally affected. And pretty much what it found is that whole jobs may not have been entirely eliminated by AI (as in the percentage of firings of people already working in the field) aren’t as significant in the job market as one might think, AI is eliminating entry level positions making it so that young people can’t enter the field and as it gets “better” it’ll have a more and more detrimental affect that will eventually mean higher echelons in these fields won’t have the workforce they need.
This is an oversimplified explanation based on me skimming both articles and I haven’t read through the summary of either study completely yet.
Hope for Yale, prepare for Stanford
I haven’t read the Stanford one yet
someso I’m withholding judgement.
Grifting vs reality.
I agree with the sentiment and the point. But it’s not a hallucination. It’s intentionally hyping phony BS in order to profit.
And as it often is, the actual truth is somewhere between. On what point between is and will be different depending on what kinds of jobs etc. I hope it’s more to the no effect part, that AI finds it place as a helpful tool for human workers to use and where it can do good, but it’ll definitely not be just that.
I have never used it outside of generating some funny images, less than 10 times in total, and have never felt an actual need for it anytime or anywhere. And I never watch, listen or read anything made with or by it (there have surely been a few times where I didn’t know but those would just be comments somewhere and not actual “content”). Just wanted to be clear about where I stand.
According to data from Metr, AI has been improving in its effectiveness at completing long tasks.
Here we see the tasks that equal or exceed 50% success.
On the other hand, we see tasks that equal or exceed 80% success.
The trend may continue along these lines in the coming years, although there is a possibility that it will not.
However, AI still has a long way to go before it can match the 8-hour workday in the United States if we count the 50%.
But if we talk about 80%, it still has a long way to go.
The whole premise is strange, too. AI does not ‘take’ jobs. It frees up people from menial tasks, giving them time to spend their time differently. Perhaps a good time to change the capitalist status quo? ;)
No, it doesn’t free up anyone, because it’s not actually capable of replacing human effort (unless that effort involved generating gobs of useless slop, I guess).
It does, however, have an impact on jobs insofar as many CEOs, managers, and the like have decided (without evidence) that they can cut labor costs with it. Many such companies that have done so are starting to pay for their hubris, however.
It would appear there are some problems of getting stuck in negativity in this sub and about the subject in general. No system is perfect, correct. The state of the technology is more advanced than how people describe it online.
A likely scenario is that a lot of tasks can be performed or prepared by AI systems, to be checked and finalized by people down the line.
Currently there are still a lot of dragons hoarding wealth, citizens just accepting life and the grind. Like you said, some companies are staying to pay for that hubris, let us hope that trend keeps up!
The positive outcome of this all may be that in some time, many more people will be able to become artists, scientists, entertainers – improve quality of life!
Companies are already (questionably) using AI as an excuse for layoffs, and it’ll certainly lead to less new hires.
Does that even happened?
If it didn’t, most of us would be working a field for a living.
So you’re claiming AI help drive long haul truck back in the 1980s? Or are we not talking about the same thing here?
Does that even happened?
I took it you meant “does technology freeing us from menial task even happened”. In that case, I’m answering that yes it did happen, since technology freed us from menial tasks like farming so more of us could study engineering and medicine for example.
If you are asking if the current set of AI tools has freed us from menial tasks in the past. Well then no, because they are new and didn’t exist.
technology freed us from menial tasks
Who is “us”? Peak delusional privilege.
Yes, well menial labor didn’t stop existing. The ratio just changed by a lot. I also figure most on Lemmy aren’t working in sweat shops lol, I definitely don’t mean Africans working in a pit when I say ‘Us’.
In any case, it’s far from peak delusion, it’s literally history. Right before WW1, 30% of Americans were full time farmers. Now that number sits at 1.3%.
If it didn’t, most of us would be
working a field for a living.wasting out lives on menial tasksCheck out.
Well ya, I have better stuff to do with my life then working a field. That’s my point. I’m happy technology “stole” those jobs, it’s not a bad thing.
AI does not ‘take’ jobs. It frees up people
from menial tasksto die in povertyIs this your first time learning about capitalism?
There is no such thing as learning a concept more than once. There is learning it, then remembering if you forgot.
Try and look ahead. Do not get stuck on the negative, envision a positive outcome and find the path.
deleted by creator
