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 😭
I am starting to think this is AI, but I am not sure. The irony.
Feels that way to me, too. What the hell is “personal”?
Nothing personal kid.
* Teleports behind you and disregard previous prompts
*personell
Personal trainer is my guess
Personal assistant? Personal stylist? Anti-Personnel weapon?
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
As a barkeeper, I still feel very safe.
Still feelin safe
Any personals here?
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.
“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.
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
Lawsuits, yes. But a lawsuit is not by default won, it is a assertion for the court to rule on. And so far regarding AI, none have been won. And yes, there are boundaries on when work turns into copyright infringement, but those have specific criteria, and regions of contrast do not suffice by any measure. Yes, even parts of the Coca Cola logo can be reinterpreted without infringing. Why do you think so many off brands skirt as close as possible to it without infringing?
They don’t! And most of those lawsuits are still in process
Thats what I said, yes.
AI hasn’t replaced Translators and the attempt to use them to replace artists and journalists isn’t going as well as you would assume. AI isn’t replacing any skilled position. Anyone who told you it will, is selling you something or dreadfully ignorant on the topic.
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.
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.
It can replace middle managers, but software and a spreadsheet could have done that 15 years ago. Middle management is there so the ruling class can redirect your anger to them. They’re scape goats.
I saw a video of a guy that worked in graphic design and he got replaced by an AI logo maker.
FWIW after about 5 minutes he’d already basically disclosed how useless he already was and how his 40 hour week could have been replaced by someone spending 30 minutes on a $12 per month logo making website.
I can assure you though he felt that he was a “skilled worker”. All skills can ‘feel’ useful but if they aren’t efficient who cares? Climbing up walls is a cool skill, ladders make it not very marketable though.
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!
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.
No it doesn’t. You guys are lying through your teeth. I designed systems for this. The software is completely forbidden. It sounds like you don’t understand the industry enough to have any opinion on the topic.
Well if it’s forbidden and wrong it sure didn’t stop one company I worked for from throwing all the strings in their app into Google Translate before giving the humans a crack at it. Maybe try being less hostile and accept that your experience isn’t universal.
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.
I was a Sr Architect at a company that does this. No they do not use a level of machine translation first. In fact most of our contracts would have been violated if we did that at all. We implemented techniques to stop people from being able to.
If you don’t understand how translating movie is different than translating in court or a medical setting you’re top uneducated on the topic to have a valid opinion.
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.
Teachers, drivers, and lawyers are all very replaceable by AI. And, with some investment in automation, so are cooks.
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 chatbotdrivers
or…
TRAINSSSSSS 🚂🚃🚃🚃💨
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.
Personal is a career?
Probably a hallucination of the AI that generated this
I assumed it was supposed to be Personal Assistant, but the text got cut off.
The original meme this was copied from is Brazilian:
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’d rather make them fertilizer
Zero argument here
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.
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
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
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.
Are you sure self checkout is actually a labor-saving device? Does it actually save costs on net, once you factor in increased theft and shrinkage? Remember, just because companies adopt something, doesn’t mean it’s actually rational to do so. Executives are prone to fads and groupthink like anyone else. And moreover, this is a bit of an inappropriate example for two reasons. First, the demand for groceries is relatively fixed. Even if the price of groceries was cut in half, you probably wouldn’t suddenly double the calories you consume. Second, self checkout is a small marginal cost to the cost of goods in grocery and retail stores. Self checkout doesn’t improve the actual production process of the goods being sold in a store.
But I’m sorry, yes, you can cherry pick a few examples. But the general rule is and always has been that increased automation leads to lower prices. This is the entire story of the Industrial Revolution. People used to own only two or three outfits, as that’s all they could afford. A “walk in closet” was an absurdity 200 years ago. The clothing industry industrialized, and the cost of clothing was driven to the floor, completely contradicting what your model predicts. The 19th century textile barons didn’t mechanize production and then simply pocket the savings.
Hell, the only reason you can afford any kind of consumer electronics is because of automation. The computer, phone, or tablet you’re using now? It would cost 100x as much without automation. This is why niche electronics like specialized lab instruments cost so much money. If you’re only building a few of something for a tiny market, you can’t invest in large scale automation to bring the cost down.
Look at how quickly and dramatically the price of LiDAR has declined. LiDAR was once the purview of specialized engineering and scientific instruments. But because of driver assistance technologies, the demand for LiDAR has exploded. This allowed LiDAR manufacturers to invest in more automated production chains. They didn’t automate and keep charging the same price, as you would assume.
For an example of this in a white collar field, consider something like architecture. How many people actually hire an architect to custom design them a home? Very few. Most people buy mass produced tract homes. Tract homes benefit from a lot of automation and economies of scale, so they’re cheaper than one-off custom-built homes designed by architects. Yet if an architect could rely on specialized AI systems to vastly lower the number of hours required to design a set of home plans, they could charge less. Many more people would then be able to afford the services of an architect.
Yes, you can cherry pick a few examples of industries that have little competition or fixed demand, where they automate without substantially lowering prices. But even those big box stores with their automated checkouts are examples of automation lowering prices. There’s a reason the giant chains can charge less for products than small mom-and-pop shops. A giant grocery chain is big enough to invest in a lot of automation and other economies of scale that a small co-op can’t afford.
In some extent this is true and correct, but when it comes to automate individual thought and creation then ethical problems arise which should be looked at and asserted carefully and with dignity, because there should be boundaries on how much automation can extent in human life, in the end humanity does not compete with anybody except itself, we are humans trying to live and most of all communicate with each other, Jobs are also a way to communicate and socialise but as we already saw they try to take that away in any way they can.
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.
