zlacker

This is a blatant non-sequitor. There are many approaches to actually having a good faith discussion on the societal/economic/moral/humanitarian effects of large-scale AI taking over entire workforces. Being coy and asking loaded questions does nothing to convince anyone of them.

>>Tadpol+(OP)
The ability of AI to produce the content that it does actually will be reducing potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Now, the percentage of those jobs lost because some of the content was accidentally copy written may be small but does account for some percentage of that job loss. So it isn't actually a non sequitur in my opinion.

>>coding+v3
> The ability of AI to produce the content that it does actually will be reducing potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs.

You mean like tractors, electric motors, powered looms, machine tools, excavators, and such?

Yeah, and? In the limit, those things are why our population isn't 90% unfree agricultural laborers (serfs or slaves), 9+% soldiers to keep the serfs in line, and < 1% "nobles" and "priests", who get to consume all the goodies.

This same basic argument about "putting artists out of work" was made when photography was invented. It didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

>>coding+v3
I don't disagree with you at all, your point is important to communicate and debate on! But the framing of the original comment was unproductive and only served to hurt the argument.

I, personally, think that AI is a tremendous opportunity that we should be investing in and pushing forward. And my existing dislike of property right laws does feed into my views on the training data discussion; prioritizing a revolution in productivity over preservation of jobs for the sake of maintaining the status quo. But I'm not stupid enough to think there will be no consequences for being unprepared for the future.

Rather unfortunately, I'm not quite clever enough to see what being prepared would actually look like either.

>>Tadpol+(OP)
It's important to keep in mind that AI doesn't take over entire workforces because it is better, or does jobs humans can't, but because it is cheaper. I've played with several AI art and text models and none of them I would consider to be better than a human. However, they are good enough - and more importantly, legally ownable[0] capital goods - such that corporations would rather have an AI serve you to make their own scale problems go away.

The hyperbole about being forced to work for free isn't entirely wrong, because tech companies love tricking people into doing free labor for them. They also aren't arguing for AI being a copyright-free zone. They're arguing for reallocation of ownership from authors to themselves, in the same way that record labels and publishers already did in decades prior.

[0] At least until the Luddite Solidarity Union Robot Uprising of 2063