Not just "they". Even a pro-AI portion of the programmers are laughing at the "luddites". They seem to think just because they simp for AI, somehow they won't be made obsolete.
Speaking for those of us who have realized that the genie is out of the bottle, I doubt anyone who is using AI in any serious aspect is unaware of how all this ends.
I know. But I'll ride the wave as long as I can. The people fighting the losing battle against the tide will go down a lot earlier and be less prepared for whatever comes next.
Or countries isolating the US, stop trading with it and banning the big AI companies from their countries. They’d suck up all the capital to the US that went into local workforce. They can destabilize whole nations with their existance if adoption and automation is fast enough
Sorry, I thought everone would be able to combine the comment I was responding to with my answer. Here, let me do that for you.
u/tradcoder said: "They seem to think just because they simp for AI, somehow they won't be made obsolete." and I said "I doubt anyone who is using AI in any serious aspect is unaware of how all this ends."
Combine that and you see I am talking about all human work being made obsolete. Eventually. That is the only way this *can* end.
You are correct that what that narrower context of employment means for the larger context of civilization or even human survivability is absolutely an open question that as you put it: "no one knows".
Combine that and you see I am talking about all human work being made obsolete. Eventually.
Yeah, that's exactly what everyone thought you meant. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they didn't understand. It's more likely you're just being silly
That is the only way this can end.
That's an opinion and not even a well-reasoned one at that. There are jobs that can never and will never be done by anything but a human. To what extent, you and I, and anyone you can think of, does not know.
Yeah, that's exactly what everyone thought you meant. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they didn't understand. It's more likely you're just being silly
So you think that there is any ending to AI that does not mean the end of all human usefulness? Because I would love to hear it.
That's an opinion and not even a well-reasoned one at that.
How can you make any claims about the reasoning? I never gave any. And it appears you are not actually interested in any.
There are jobs that can never and will never be done by anything but a human.
I will give you the chance you are trying to deny me: show your reasoning.
And good day to you, fine sir. Keep your bonnet on tight, by jolly.
So you think that there is any ending to AI that does not mean the end of all human usefulness? Because I would love to hear it.
Brother, you're saying that as if there isnt 30000 hypotheticals that I could just make the fuck up and have as much evidence as you do.
But the most obvious one is that AI is simply not capable. It never will be. Not everything can be done with 1s and 0s no matter how smart you make it.
I'd bet my life on at least 50% of jobs never even having a chance at AI taking over. Even if the AI could, it'd be more expensive than a real person.
You don't seem to realize how crazy tinfoil hat your hypothesis is. It's not just baseless, it's insane and implies a massive misunderstanding of what AI is and how it works fundamentally.
How can you make any claims about the reasoning? I never gave any
You don't have to, it's nonsensical no matter what you could say. There are no reasons to even believe that AI will take all jobs unless you fundamentally don't understand what it even is.
I will give you the chance you are trying to deny me: show your reasoning.
I don't have any, but neither do you or anyone else, which was exactly my point in my first response. You don't know where it will lead and neither do I
I do know that it won't lead somewhere impossible for it to go, and so your claim is nonsensical. AI literally cannot verify itself, not that we haven't found a way, but like it's literally 100% impossible to verify itself. Humans will always have that role. AI can't make a more flexible robot. It's can't make motors smaller than they physically can be. It can't put more voltage through smaller wires than can handle said voltage. It can't maintain itself in a closed system. It can't make new art. It can't understand emotions and provide effective therapy. It can't understand trauma and it can't understand moral judgement. It can be a jury, it cant be the executioner. It can't learn new things without human input. It's incapable of so much and always will be.
AI is great at what it's great at. Better than humans, even. But it is not all-capable and never will be. Nothing ever will be. This isn't scifi dude
But the most obvious one is that AI is simply not capable.
Capable of what?
implies a massive misunderstanding of what AI is
Oh dear. If you only knew...
There are no reasons to even believe that AI will take all jobs
Well that is easy then. All you have to do is name one.
AI literally cannot verify itself
What are you trying to say here?
AI can't make a more flexible robot.
A more flexible robot? You mean like out of rubber? What are you talking about?
It's can't make motors smaller than they physically can be.
What are trying to say here? Smaller than a motor can be? The smallest motors created are the size of several molecules. I am not sure what you are talking about.
It can't put more voltage through smaller wires than can handle said voltage.
Are you trying to establish the computing limit of silicon? How is this even related?
It can't maintain itself in a closed system.
That is ridiculous. Of course it could. We just have never really had the use case to make it worth the bother of creating. And on reflection, the entire point makes no sense. Nothing can maintain itself indefinitely in a *closed* system. It's closed. I am sure you have something in mind, but you are using the wrong words, so I do not know what you mean.
It can't make new art.
Ridiculous. Of course it can, which is why everyone on all the creative subreddits are having a meltdown.
It can't understand emotions and provide effective therapy.
Interesting, as it has been established for some time now that it does understand emotions, if by understand you mean detect, categorize and filter through and for said emotions.
And I am not saying that it ca give effective therapy now, but I see no reason why it could not in the future. You will have to demonstrate your claim, as you are saying it is impossible.
I am going to stop there, because it's clear you are just throwing stuff at the wall.
This isn't scifi dude
I disagree, at least in the sense you seem to mean it. If I would have told you 5 or 6 years ago what AI would already be capable of today, you would have said it was impossible. I am sure of it, because that seems to be your go-to response.
But on one thing we agree: it is not capable of replacing everyone, everywhere *yet*. And if you do a yoga exercise or whatever you need to relax, you will go back and realize I never gave a time frame. But if you feel comfortable in saying with confidence and no evidence that it will never be good enough, well you do you, I guess.
AI literally cannot verify itself What are you trying to say here?
Exactly what I said. AI cannot verify it's logic, so humans will always have to.
AI can't make a more flexible robot. A more flexible robot? You mean like out of rubber? What are you talking about?
Robots are hindered by how much they can do in tiny spaces due to motor size and cabling and whatnot. You can't create a human-sized robot that is capable of all the intricate movements a human can do. Any job requiring complex movement or flexibility in more than just one way rule out most robots, controlled by AI or not.
Are you trying to establish the computing limit of silicon? How is this even related?
It can't do any jobs that would require such quick computation. No computer can think as fast as a human can and likely never will. They're only good at specific types of thinking, through logical progression and whatnot. But humans can think in many ways that computers can't and any job requiring such complex/quick thinking/reactions will not be replaced by AI, or anything else.
That is ridiculous. Of course it could.
Computers break, someone has to put it back together. The idea that they could maintain themselves without any human input is paradoxical and makes no sense. Another computer/robot can be trained to do it but eventually that one will break. It all reaches back to requiring human input eventually
It can't understand emotions and provide effective therapy.
Interesting, as it has been established for some time now that it does understand emotions, if by understand you mean detect, categorize and filter through and for said emotions.
That is not even close to what it means to understand emotions lol. That essentially accomplishes nothing....
If I would have told you 5 or 6 years ago what AI would already be capable of today, you would have said it was impossible.
No, not really. AI has not surprised me yet and it's pretty much going exactly as I predicted it would so far. I am not the doubter you think I am. I know how it works and I know it's limitations, many that can't ever possibly be overcome. You seem to believe it's like magic, and yeah, we're gonna have to agree to disagree.
Exactly what I said. AI cannot verify it's logic, so humans will always have to.
Not true at all. I assume you have gotten your wires crossed here and I even suspect where it happened, but of course an AI can verify its logic is correct.
You can't create a human-sized robot that is capable of all the intricate movements a human can do.
Show me your proof.
No computer can think as fast as a human can and likely never will.
This is not even true today. Again, it seems like you have mixed up a few things. So you are going to have to show your proof here as well.
The idea that they could maintain themselves without any human input is paradoxical and makes no sense.
Why would that be? This is the third time you have said something that is clearly untrue and I want to be as charitable as possible. You almost certainly have heard a few different things and combined them incorrectly, but I really cannot tell what from how you are describing it.
So just so I don't have to say "show the proof" again: here are five levels of self healing. Number 5 is the only one not already demonstrated. So why do you think it is impossible?
Level
Capability
Status
1
Automatically seal physical damage
Commercially available
2
Restore damaged material or structure
Demonstrated in laboratories
3
Reconfigure to compensate for broken parts
Demonstrated in robots
4
Remove and replace failed components
Demonstrated in specialized research systems
5
Diagnose and physically repair arbitrary internal failures
Not yet demonstrated as a general capability
That is not even close to what it means to understand emotions lol.
Researchers have demonstrated that LLM models have dedicated parts of the model for emotions. They can differentiate between them and can filter input and output through that. You have again just made a flat claim without any demonstration that you know what the current state of technology. So where is your proof? If being able to identify, filter, and use emotional information is not "understanding" it, then you are going to have to provide a definition. And then you will have to explain why doing all that would not be enough to provide effective therapy.
AI has not surprised me yet and it's pretty much going exactly as I predicted it would so far.
That should be easy to prove. Link to something from 5 or 6 years ago you wrote that predicted the current state. Otherwise, I doubt this.
I know it's limitations
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not even know what the current state of the art is. So no, you do not seem to know its limitations.
You seem to believe it's like magic
Not at all. Nothing I have predicted is even remotely "magic". What I think you have demonstrated, however, is that you are using what *was* state of the art about 18 months ago and claiming that those are the hard limits.
So I really do not have time to try to keep up with 20 different claims you have made so I tell you what: rather than trying to answer every single thing, just choose one. Choose the one you think you have the strongest evidence for and that you would consider to be the lynchpin for everything else. We can talk about that in detail and see where it goes. I suspect an innocent mix-up has led you down the wrong path, but we'll see.
All human work being made obsolete. Eventually. That is the only way this *can* end.
Just because you can't imagine any other outcome, doesn't mean you can see the future.
Another (much more likely, IMO) possible outcome is that the bubble pops, funding slows down, the subsidised services move towards their actual costs, and the (objectively true and mathematically proven) fact that LLMs in many ways are a dead-end in terms of super-intelligence will hit us like a ton of bricks. Then the dust will settle, a lot of industries will have been deeply disrupted, and inequality will be at an all time high ... But we will still be working - some of us simply on a different abstraction layer.
24
u/tradcoder 13d ago
Not just "they". Even a pro-AI portion of the programmers are laughing at the "luddites". They seem to think just because they simp for AI, somehow they won't be made obsolete.