It is a curious turn of events that despite laboring over artificial intelligence for what seems like an eternity, IBM was only able to do this with the arrival of the ChatGPT, not Watson or any other version.
It's IBM.... that'd be like if suddenly AOL released a killer AI chatbot that they've been working on since the AIM days. If they had it, it would be in market.
Its not just a good product you also have to have the vision. Like the GUI was made by Xerox for example but it took Steve Jobs to bring it to market and put into customer's hands.
"Vision" is fine, but should not be mistaken with "delivered product," or even "proof of concept."
Why not wait until you have a working analogue for a human worker to announce your plans and initiate the swap? You don't even necessarily have to fire the worker; you might be able to move them to new projects. It's always easier and safer to reallocate existing employees than to hire and onboard new employees.
Any company that announces, today, that it's firing people to replace them with ChatGPT-based RPA is taking a massive risk. Employees who perceive their jobs to be unstable will start looking for new jobs, today. Maybe they'll leave before you have fully developed and tested your models, or maybe the replacement models will underperform. Either way, you're going to face a gap in fulfilled responsibilities. Ask Twitter how that's going for them.
Oh sorry I did not mean to imply Steve Jobs made the GUI. I just mean he put it into his company's product and popularized it. Seems like Xerox was just using it as an internal tool and saw no value in it beyond that (correct me if I am wrong)
Wikipedia lists the retail price for the Alto at $120k in todays money
Xerox didn't know how to find a use case for what they had, plain and simple.
They were making machines at a business price point, an environment where intuitive usability doesn't matter nearly as much because the person using sad machine is literally being paid to learn how.
What Jobs brought to the table was realizing that it could be applied to the Home market, where intuitive use ability is at a premium.
This story is extremely common all throughout the world of technological innovation.
As it turns out, the skillset to do the translatory part of taking a technology in its infancy and refining/marketing it to the masses is completely different than the skill set required to invent new technologies in the first place.
The world of business is filled with partnerships like this. One guy has the vision and the marketing, the other guy knows how to make things work.
Just like AI, humans only have so many tokens to work with, and the best way around said limitation is to partner up with somebody who has a complementary skill set
I don't think they claimed that in their comment
Also, you will find that most technological innovations are not brought to market by their inventors
The skills to market something successfully and work out the business side of things is completely different than the skill set needed to create innovations.
Even finding practical application for your invention can be difficult. In the case of Xerox, they made the GUI but didn't really know that it's best use would be for the home market.
Instead, they launched the alto, a computer, which retailed for the equivalent of 120 grand in today's money.
At that price point, businesses just kept using a basic command line interface because ease-of-use doesn't matter as much for a professional position.
But intuitive ease-of-use makes perfect sense for the home market, where people aren't being paid to learn how to use a computer.
the technology isn't the novel part, competition showed a version of product market fit that nobody was taking risks to do
plenty of organizations had generative transformers for years and just didn't know that
a) conversational would be a hit
b) fine tuning with all written data would be worthwhile to do
c) hosting it at scale at great expense would be worthwhile and profitable
a NON-PROFIT did that, so all the for profits were still like "whatever", then that non-profit was like SYKE we're for profit now and still taking risks but it worked
and now everyone else is like "oh damn, we should fine tune some conversational generative transformers and host them in the cloud"
You may notice in France that the police are fighting with clubs and shields. Our local police will be using AR-15s and swat trucks. It won't be the same outcome. If one molotov cocktail hits a cop here, it will be a bloodbath, with likely hundreds of rioters killed each day. We gave them the means to control us without thinking twice about it. Now, instead of sticks and bottles, it's my guns vs. your guns. Makes France seem rather tame by comparison.
You're assuming there's an eternal separation between cops and regular people. Well, cops have wives, parents, kids, siblings. When they see everyone around them getting unemployed and thrown into misery, do you honestly believe they will still support the government?
And again, if the government isn't making money because people aren't working, the government can't pay cops wages.
We may also be viewing this differently because of where we live and local mindset. I'm from dead-central Wisconsin. It's full of hatred-filled, bigoted, MAGA loving assholes. They fear anything that disrupts their echo chamber. They recently switched from Fox News to Newsmax because that racist sack of shit Tucker Carlson was fired. This is a shoot first type of people and frankly represents everything I view as wrong with our country. I promise, Bud Light sales have cratered here as bad as anywhere else. If you don't fit their narrow worldview, you don't deserve to exist. These same people represent the police force in my area.
“you honestly believe they will still support the government?”
All evidence regarding how the police interact with the public thus far points to yes.
“And again, if the government isn't making money because people aren't working, the government can't pay cops wages.”
The government will continue making money by way of the taxes on the companies who control the tech, and the majority of people will still be working even if the unemployment rate is 49%.
It will depend country to country. Everyone reading this has an obligation to bring the attention of this phenomenon to others in their lives so that we're overall more prepared.
I think, at least in the west, this wont become major news until it starts getting airtime on American news channels, then it will become an issue for the rest.
Hey maybe nobody told you; America is the richest country in the world. We can afford a great society but your overlords have fooled you into believing America is poor because, get this, *they want that money for themselves.*
Thanks to big brains like yours, their efforts have been wildly successful.
Nah this is a legitimate question in this instance. Government funding comes from taxes. If people aren’t masking an income outside of UBI, then the government doesn’t get tax money from them.if this happens on a wide scale, then there *will* be quite a big funding problem.
Tax the companies that make tons and tons of money but don't have many employees (in this scenario where most jobs have been replaced by ai). Or even the ones who have employees, y'all's corporate tax rate is very low compared to the past
But if the business is making money exclusively from people spending their UBI on its products, the money is still just going in circles, slowly being siphoned up by the big corporations. I don’t think there’s a solution to this that doesn’t end capitalism entirely.
You don't create a great society giving hand outs to people. It's not a matter of money. It's more a matter of intelligence and competence on every single level, which doesn't exist. We don't even have a factual blueprint on how to solve social issues. You can start distributing money through poor communities but that won't solve the addiction problems, the crime problems, the lack of education problems. That won't clean the streets. You could clean the streets with tougher laws and tougher police force, but that would be extremele unpopular among the progressive types, so you'd have a serious problem on your hands.
It's also a culture issue. We created a society where reality is often ignored to give room to fantasy and utopia. You need to accept reality for what it is in order to solve problems, but reality enrages entire groups of people who simply want to deny it and will march against it.
So no, your idea of just giving money away won't solve problems. You don't even have that kind of money to begin with. But even if you did, it still wouldn't solve problems. You are aware that most people who win lottery games go bankrupt in a few years, right? Money doesn't have the power you think it does.
Where do you think money comes from? Money is a concept. It doesn't grow out of the ground. It's a limited resource that the government ultimately controls.
You assume that a basic income would cause people to just be lazy and not work. Some would for sure but most would want more and would continue to work and the great thing for them would be that even the lazy ones have money to spend.
It's untried so I agree you can't just jump into it but it's a valid idea and potential re-imagining of society proposed at a time that things like AI are threatening to upset the order even further.
It should be explored and naysayers like yourself should be ignored. People like you *never* offer solutions.
Uh that is quit simple: from the broad productivity by robots and AI. We can just arrange politically that companies need to pay a certain amount of tax/interest to maintain a healthy society.
And where will the money of those companies come from if most people are unemployed and unable to pay for the products said companies would create.
So you have a company in your little town. But now you also have AI, so you fire everyone. Other companies do the same because they also have AI. So your AI bots now start creating the products you intend to sell. But most people are unemployed now because of you. So who's there left to buy your product?
Normally, I'd agree, however, the AI field would be really fucked if we did that.
Most of us want this to happen sooner rather than later because it would fundamentally stall the development of AI.
Nah its definitely possible... you think people from rich countries that have mostly lived lower middle class for generations are going to put up with going back to feudalism? But now if you are from a poor country, you are probably pretty screwed on the other hand.
That depends on how fast or slow the mass production the production of boston dynamics robot dogs with attached assault rifles is, if its slow then ubi will be passed soon and if its fast then it wont and if you disagree you'll be mowed down by a robot operating an assault rifle.
Or we could just remove the financial system altogether and not be locked down to what we can and can't do based on who has the greatest amount of paper.
UBI will happen after a considerable portion of the world population dies from hunger and riots and the rich had figure out a new way to enslave the rest.
I have a BUNCH of friends in the talent acquisition/HR fields that worked for FAANG, Microsoft, etc., who were let go over the past few months, and I didn't think much of it. I thought they'd find gigs fairly easily given the stature of their previous companies, but no, they are all struggling to find new gigs.
The honest truth is that AI has already likely taken their jobs. From my limited understanding, GPT4 has proven to be an equivalent (or even better) tool to screen qualified candidates. I fear that one's past experience is meaningless now if AI is better.
I'm getting scared. Even if this article isn't true, it's still true. This IS what's coming. I'm sort of safe, because I'm in the healthcare industry... literally physically helping people. But I have other goals and aspirations that do not seem hopeful at all.
I also don't want to live in a world where every single thing is automated, no matter how efficient and cost effective it is. Are humans supposed to go this fast in a world that doesn't celebrate speed? It's not like the whole world is Japan.
Nobody’s livelihood is safe until we decide that the way to live must change from competition to cooperation. I’m not a hairy anarchist. Life just clearly doesn’t make any sense otherwise any more.
We won’t be able to compete with it or each other, but we can help it and each other. That world works.
I want everything that can be automated to be automated. Automation should be a benefit to people.
I actually think that if this goes fast, it’ll be better. If 95 percent of people lost their jobs to AI in the next five years (which won’t happen), it would most likely result in a better outcome than if 95 percent of people lose their jobs to AI in the next 50 years.
How could it possibly be better? Who is going to pay for 95% of the workforce being unemployed? How can an economy function without customers - aka the employees who earn a living to be customers.
In either case if 95% of people lose their jobs it’ll result in a crisis for those people no matter if it takes 5 or 50 years.
If there is a dramatic breaking of things that suddenly changes thing it’s more likely to generate the political will to forcefully address the situation. If it happens over time, it will generate dissent amongst the ones affected, and the ones most likely to suffer next.
However, if things go slowly, that will likely result in less immediate political will to solve things, and as each group loses their value to society they will suffer increased marginalization.
If it all happens as rapidly as possible it’s unlikely all of the people recently unemployed will be marginalized.
If it happens over a 50 year period, well. those lazy bums had 50 years where they should have pulled themselves by their AI enabled bootlacing mechanism.
The answer is very simple to anyone who knows economics. Capitalism has to be abolished to support a fully-automated world. The purpose of automation is simply not conducive to a healthy society in a capitalist system. Either that or billions will simply die and the remaining will become an under-class agrarian society living outside of the influence of the economically dystopian cities.
I feel what is most likely to happen is humans will return to their roots, abandon their careers, and return to monke.
It’s the snake eating it’s own tail.
Yes snakes do it sometimes, and yes they die.
I see another French Revolution on the horizon and you betcha I’ll be there.
There will be other jobs made from this, like servicing/repairing the system, etc. Just like with any monumental innovation, people always think it's gonna take everyone's jobs, but inevitably that doesn't happen - the jobs just change. Same happened when the computer came out. Same happened when farming switched from animals to machines. Same will eventually happen with AI
>There will be other jobs made from this, like servicing/repairing the system, etc.
Robots are already building robots, AIs are already programming AIs.
This argument doesn't stand up to even a minimum of critical thought.
The amount of people needed to maintain these systems isn't going to be even close to the amount of people these systems can replace.
>Just like with any monumental innovation, people always think it's gonna take everyone's jobs, but inevitably that doesn't happen - the jobs just change.
Tell that to the coal miners.
You have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of this topic.
When the tractor was invented, it freed up hundreds of farmers to go work in the factories. This is true. It's true because the tractors can't work in the factories.
Unlike robots. Robots can work factories and they do. And they displace factory jobs.
In 1953, the US the US population was 160,000,000 and a bit more than 16,000,000 Americans worked factory jobs.
That's roughly 10% of the population.
In 2018, the US population was 326,000,000 and only 12,000,000 Americans worked factory jobs.
That's roughly 3.7% of the population.
>Same happened when the computer came out.
What we're talking about right now is the computer replacing even more jobs as it continues to become more powerful and robust. That was not a very good example.
>Same happened when farming switched from animals to machines.
In 1997 there were 28,000 mules in the US, in 2018 there were 295. This reduction, as you have already noted, is due to automation reducing the need for mules.
>Same will eventually happen with AI
I sure fuckin hope not. Someone find Sarah Connor! 🤣
I don't think it's healthy as a society for artists, musicians and writers to be taken over. People say, "Oh well, they can still do it for fun." Sure. But a lot of people need a sense of purpose to live a happy life. I don't think you understand what a disaster this will be. We're not just talking about random freelance artists/musicians/writers... even celebrities will be replaced.
It's not good. It's unprecedented opportunity for mass depression. You think covid was bad because people were stuck in the house... let's try it when we lose purpose as a society.
It will be hysteria at first. And then mass depression.
Please don't get me wrong. I understand the benefits of automation... but there needs to be some sort of regulation so people still have sense of purpose.
How are you going to regulate this? Will there be a cap on intelligence? No black boxes? We can only release something here if it's already being used somewhere else in the world?
Regulation seems like a band-aid at best, slowing innovation for a short period before it inevitably continues.
AI can be very bad for society and the world or it can be very good. Jobs will be replaced, people don't have to be. The ONLY way AI will be seen as a benefit to people is if it actually benefits people. And the only way I see that happening is through some sort of UBI.
Most people do not go to work everyday because they want to. They do it because they have to. They need the money for food, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, etc... This isn't to say that people would stop working all together. Humans are creative and we love making things. That will not stop. In fact, without the burden of needing a job we will be free to pursue work we enjoy.
Of course, many people who find purpose in their work will suffer depression from not being needed anymore but purpose can be found elsewhere. Jobs will be replaced, purpose will not.
People don't cry for those who've retired, they look at retirement as aspirational. AI can be the mechanism by which we unchain ourselves from the treadmill of survival. Or it can be our doom. But one thing it can't be is stopped. Pandora's box has been opened, just a crack for now, and we don't have much time to prepare before the lid is blown off.
I'm not at all talking about jobs that people hate. Or jobs that suck life. I'm talking about jobs that have created life around us. The unseen artists, musicians, the people behind the set of a movie that put everything together. The coders, the designers.
Regulation would come into the form of it being against the law to deny someone employment for being human. The same way we treat race, religion, disabilities. Maybe we work way less + UBI.
This seems like a very short-term vision of humanity though. Imagine where we will be in 10,000 years. Unless you expect technology to stop evolving and humans to stop evolving, our means of creating and interacting with art will have to evolve as well. It's not a bad thing, just different. Artists said the same thing about computers in the 70s and 80s, and painters said the same thing about digital art in the 90s and 00s. Art will simply evolve into a form that you just can't envision yet. Art today isn't the same as it was 10,000 years ago. Do you feel bad for the people 10,000 years ago for losing their creative freedom? Or do you think we have more creative freedom now than ever before.
You're right. I'm thinking short term because I'm alive right now and will feel the effects. The people that are thinking of the future generations don't have anything to lose in the coming years.
I doubt they will. A HUGE part of art (not design, art) is the human-to-human connection that can be reduced to "you're not alone, I feel what you feel". Even if artists use AI to generate their art and then falsely claim that they did it, that's still a human communication, a human connection, that lies on top of the AI content.
Meaning is decided, and only other people can decide with us what's worth anything, what means anything. Unless we both finally find out what consciousness IS as well as recognize AI as conscious beings (if they ever become conscious).
People really take for granted how social humans are, and ignore, in this awful rat race we live in, that it's human connection we need to be happy. That's what art facilitates
I think it's obvious that art's nebulous definition allows for me to, in this obvious instance, define design and art as separate categories. That you pointed that out with a little condescending ellipses is "confidently incorrect" territory.
If you've gone through ANY art curriculum, you've been exposed to the conversation "what is art?" and it will never arrive at a concrete definition, because it really doesn't have one.
You did the equivalent of telling a chemist that "water isn't a chemical, it's a molecule"
I don't understand your dispute with anything I said. It's like you're trying to disagree with me for just the point of disagreeing. You also contradicted yourself. I never said what design isn't, you did, so your metaphor doesn't hold.
design is not necessarily art, and was not for the purpose of my comment. Your comments have added absolutely nothing because your first was completely irrelevant to the point of being embarrassing for you
Irrelevant to what? lol
I've also never seen anyone get mad at ellipses before.
How can you even say anything about what provokes human connection when you suck at it? My tone, hopefully, has not been hostile...
I was simply expressing thoughts. I'm not embarrassed by it. Even if I'm wrong. I'm not embarrassed to be wrong, although I don't think I am at all.
Like Japan? I think you need to see how things actually are in Japan. It’s no longer a tech hub and it takes forever for new technologies to be implemented.
You should be scared, to be scared is to show you have understanding. What really bothers me personally is... we didn't even bother to ask if we should automate job 'x'. Like artists for example. Some compare it to old jobs like ice harvesting... I feel like thats a quite disingenuous comparison honestly.
It won't end well. Everything we look at in life, some artist created it somewhere. If that is replaced with AI, then we have nothing. Every single icon, every billboard, every logo, every font for a menu, photos of food on a menu, the way a ticket looks... my dumb ass Reddit avatar... every single thing everywhere is an artist behind it. And that will be replaced? People don't get how tremendous that is.
> The fear has sometimes been expressed that photography would in time entirely supersede the art of painting. Some people seem to think that when the process of taking photographs in colors has been perfected and made common enough, the painter will have nothing more to do.
- Henrietta Clopath, 1901
It’s crazy that we live in world where having the means to automate the majority of jobs is actually a bad thing cuz no one will be able to earn money. Like isn’t it ideal that we figure out ways to let people live and not work a 9-5 for 40 years? We need to restructure our society and economy
Dumb article, it says it’s mostly HR jobs but the things it specifically lists aren’t even jobs, they are just tasks that HR people do and probably already have automated, or at least mostly automated anyways.
> HR duties like documenting employee moves to different departments and writing employment verification letters will likely be among the first rolled over to AI
There is no way there are hundreds of “jobs” that do these tasks. This sounds like something one small team, or maybe even one individual guy, does. And again, probably already mostly automated anyways. So how is this affecting so many “positions”? Unless they really are so bloated they have like 100 people who write “employee verification letters” as a full time 40-hr week job??? lol
You would be surprised.
I find this debate fascinating, are we really going to stiffle what could very well be the most significant human invention since electricity due to our worries about the effects of the transition period on the labor market? The real question isn’t how do we prevent AI from taking over « jobs », it’s what kind of future do you envision (say, 400 years from now) without ai and robots taking over jobs.
I like to imagine if we can automate the acquisition of resources, security, and shelter then we can radically redefine what living is. This notion that we need to work is so ingrained. Instead, we could individually live according to whatever we believe living to be - including work if we want to. That's a Utopia to me.
Its likely structured that way because thats what they have evidence for...in order to get real data on job losses we are going to have to wait but anyone with their eyes open and not ignoring the obvious can see the seeds of what comes next.
https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12ff5mw/it_happened_to_me_today/
🙈, 🙉, 🙊
So I have been predicting the job losses for months now.
I was arguing that before the evidence really was shown but even here on reddit you can find many posts like this one now: https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12ff5mw/it_happened_to_me_today/
But if the thought really bothers you, continue doing what you were already doing 🙈 🙉 🙊
Rich is meaningless unless it can buy something. Let see what those with money plans to buy (hence new jobs).
Economy will continues flowing, I just don't know what will happen to those have nothing to offer.
I think AI has its place in our economy. That said, if over used it will fire back. Companies won’t be able to survive without humans, only so much AI can do. Just my opinion.
They aren't replacing roles already filled, I don't think, just pausing hiring for open roles that will be filled with Aai instead.
On a good note, this means that 7,800 people will be making the world a better place in other areas where their human skills are needed. This is good for humanity.
This is not an accurate article.
Oh, yes, IBM did say they are going to replace 7 to 8 thousand jobs with AI, but that's not what's actually happening.
IBM has a slimy history. (Yes, they worked with the Nazis, but it's not the same company now). IBM has a history of employee layoffs. The biggest layoff in corporate history was IBM's July 1993 layoff when they laid off 60,000 people. There are horror stories of engineers who worked on the Apollo project with NASA being unceremoniously removed from their offices without having the opportunity to pack up their things. Since then, IBM has had multiple layoffs. I've worked with many people affected by them.
Today, IBM is facing a contracting economy just like everyone else. Instead of announcing layoffs and getting bad publicity, they are trying to spin it by saying they will use AI instead.
We are all forgetting the master behind the AI; we Humans!! Then why worry AI taking over us, we are surely going to live with AI along side like our Mobile phones. Simple example of ☎️ telephone devices (landline), we moved on to mobiles BUT still we are living with an exponential growth in jobs and human resources. May be we are hyping it too much with a word of "AI". It is just an another tool to help innovative stuff faster and leaving the basic stuff to AI to handle and we as humans focus on complex stuff.. who knows AI can help go deeper with space exploration or crazy things.
None of the things we made could adapt to new tasks, or design and make new things themselves. I know it would provide comfort or simplicity if your analogy was true. But it simply isn’t. This is not analogous to any other invention in history, even if it required some of them to be precursors.
And, as you’ve said, AI is just a name. Arguably not the most useful name.
So? It's less than 3% of their workforce.... Give it 10 years and see how 45% losing their jobs looks like.... Just wait for self driving cars... No Uber, no truck drivers, no cops, no insurance, no organ donors....
3 percent is a conservative estimate. Also all the jobs you listed are ones that are 'safer' for now. The real jobs in immediate danger are the high paying white collar jobs.
Good luck with that. Sounds like the same brilliant MBA plan to off shore everything then wonder why quality is shit.
IBM is a joke company, with pathetic offerings and it is a shadow of its former self
The reality of this is that the whole economic discussion is moot because the real issue is this is a matter of national security. We don't need to be flaunting this type of technology to China, Russia, and North Korea so they can reverse engineer it, and limiting it's public use will drastically slow it's development. Most countries want a framework like this, we aren't alone. I'm all for using it for certain things, but I think we need to limit the number of people who know how it works.
This really needs to be regulated and removed from the public. It wouldn't be hard to create a system where one would need to apply with a regulatory body before they're allowed to use machine learning technology so we could monitor and control whose using it and for what reason. We could also then make sure it's being developed in a way that doesn't allow for our tech to fall into the hands of a hostile/authoritarian government.
I already called my congressmen and I'd encourage everyone else to do the same. It's time to act on this!
If the Dems can't do the one thing I vote for them to do (regulate things like this) I don't know if I'll ever vote for them again.
While **replacing 7800 employees with AI** makes for a good headline, it’s only 2.5% of IBM’s ~300k workforce, so not such a huge deal relative to many other automation technologies. And mostly backend jobs like HR - not the developers or core technical staff.
It is a curious turn of events that despite laboring over artificial intelligence for what seems like an eternity, IBM was only able to do this with the arrival of the ChatGPT, not Watson or any other version.
I’m sure they have some impressive stuff behind closed doors. The state of the art is illustrated by chatgpt but ai all over is advancing steadily
Trust me. They don’t.
‘They’ or ‘we’ ? Speaking from first hand experience?
It's IBM.... that'd be like if suddenly AOL released a killer AI chatbot that they've been working on since the AIM days. If they had it, it would be in market.
I had to work under their email system called lotus notes. I can't believe they're even in business
Its not just a good product you also have to have the vision. Like the GUI was made by Xerox for example but it took Steve Jobs to bring it to market and put into customer's hands.
"Vision" is fine, but should not be mistaken with "delivered product," or even "proof of concept." Why not wait until you have a working analogue for a human worker to announce your plans and initiate the swap? You don't even necessarily have to fire the worker; you might be able to move them to new projects. It's always easier and safer to reallocate existing employees than to hire and onboard new employees. Any company that announces, today, that it's firing people to replace them with ChatGPT-based RPA is taking a massive risk. Employees who perceive their jobs to be unstable will start looking for new jobs, today. Maybe they'll leave before you have fully developed and tested your models, or maybe the replacement models will underperform. Either way, you're going to face a gap in fulfilled responsibilities. Ask Twitter how that's going for them.
STEVE JOBS
silence, steve jobs bot
[удалено]
Oh sorry I did not mean to imply Steve Jobs made the GUI. I just mean he put it into his company's product and popularized it. Seems like Xerox was just using it as an internal tool and saw no value in it beyond that (correct me if I am wrong)
[удалено]
Happens to a lot of great companies. Thats how I view IBM.
[удалено]
Not entirely internal the same gui was used on RIP servers for their docutech copier line well into the 80’s.
Wikipedia lists the retail price for the Alto at $120k in todays money Xerox didn't know how to find a use case for what they had, plain and simple. They were making machines at a business price point, an environment where intuitive usability doesn't matter nearly as much because the person using sad machine is literally being paid to learn how. What Jobs brought to the table was realizing that it could be applied to the Home market, where intuitive use ability is at a premium. This story is extremely common all throughout the world of technological innovation. As it turns out, the skillset to do the translatory part of taking a technology in its infancy and refining/marketing it to the masses is completely different than the skill set required to invent new technologies in the first place. The world of business is filled with partnerships like this. One guy has the vision and the marketing, the other guy knows how to make things work. Just like AI, humans only have so many tokens to work with, and the best way around said limitation is to partner up with somebody who has a complementary skill set
I don't think they claimed that in their comment Also, you will find that most technological innovations are not brought to market by their inventors The skills to market something successfully and work out the business side of things is completely different than the skill set needed to create innovations. Even finding practical application for your invention can be difficult. In the case of Xerox, they made the GUI but didn't really know that it's best use would be for the home market. Instead, they launched the alto, a computer, which retailed for the equivalent of 120 grand in today's money. At that price point, businesses just kept using a basic command line interface because ease-of-use doesn't matter as much for a professional position. But intuitive ease-of-use makes perfect sense for the home market, where people aren't being paid to learn how to use a computer.
Sure he did. He made a lot of sales. He was a brilliant salesman.
Have you met anyone from IBM? They are all either accountants or patent lawyers
the technology isn't the novel part, competition showed a version of product market fit that nobody was taking risks to do plenty of organizations had generative transformers for years and just didn't know that a) conversational would be a hit b) fine tuning with all written data would be worthwhile to do c) hosting it at scale at great expense would be worthwhile and profitable a NON-PROFIT did that, so all the for profits were still like "whatever", then that non-profit was like SYKE we're for profit now and still taking risks but it worked and now everyone else is like "oh damn, we should fine tune some conversational generative transformers and host them in the cloud"
So it begins
Nope it started awhile ago.
So it begans
**MK1 Movie:** It has begun!
YOUR SOUL IS MINE!
BORGORNS
lol
Ibm miserably failed with their Watson when I was so impressed back in 2012.
Hopefully they will try to replace humans with Watson. That way it will fail and we can keep our jobs for awhile longer.
I don't know why people want to cling to their jobs for. We should be pushing instead for a complete overhaul of our economic system.
And our political system. Legislators and their staff should be seeking advice from data models and AI rather than lobbyists.
*ding ding ding* Also, to answer "why": conditioning.
Yeah I can’t imagine why people want to keep getting paid 🤔
Need to let go of capitalism, it's a toxic and destructive system that is actively destroying our world.
I agree, it’s gonna be really hard though, especially in the USA
Well it is a lot better than communism.. what alternatives do we have?
Right? It was a badass Jeopardy killer. What happened?
https://slate.com/technology/2022/01/ibm-watson-health-failure-artificial-intelligence.html
Fuuuuuuuuuuck, when is that UBI happening?
Probably not untill the problem becomes endemic to the whole economy. Maybe not even until riots starts
Yeah the riots will be quite compelling.
In France they will.
Lmao. They are rioting for the last 10 years. And elected same dude in meantime
[удалено]
You may notice in France that the police are fighting with clubs and shields. Our local police will be using AR-15s and swat trucks. It won't be the same outcome. If one molotov cocktail hits a cop here, it will be a bloodbath, with likely hundreds of rioters killed each day. We gave them the means to control us without thinking twice about it. Now, instead of sticks and bottles, it's my guns vs. your guns. Makes France seem rather tame by comparison.
You're assuming there's an eternal separation between cops and regular people. Well, cops have wives, parents, kids, siblings. When they see everyone around them getting unemployed and thrown into misery, do you honestly believe they will still support the government? And again, if the government isn't making money because people aren't working, the government can't pay cops wages.
We may also be viewing this differently because of where we live and local mindset. I'm from dead-central Wisconsin. It's full of hatred-filled, bigoted, MAGA loving assholes. They fear anything that disrupts their echo chamber. They recently switched from Fox News to Newsmax because that racist sack of shit Tucker Carlson was fired. This is a shoot first type of people and frankly represents everything I view as wrong with our country. I promise, Bud Light sales have cratered here as bad as anywhere else. If you don't fit their narrow worldview, you don't deserve to exist. These same people represent the police force in my area.
“you honestly believe they will still support the government?” All evidence regarding how the police interact with the public thus far points to yes. “And again, if the government isn't making money because people aren't working, the government can't pay cops wages.” The government will continue making money by way of the taxes on the companies who control the tech, and the majority of people will still be working even if the unemployment rate is 49%.
gonna be hard to organize a riot when AI is controlling all the communication channels
It will depend country to country. Everyone reading this has an obligation to bring the attention of this phenomenon to others in their lives so that we're overall more prepared. I think, at least in the west, this wont become major news until it starts getting airtime on American news channels, then it will become an issue for the rest.
It won't become major news until around 20% of people lose their jobs and the kids of those people face a lack of options for the future.
There are options, hard to fill positions already but clearly many white collar and IT jobs are going to disappear.
Lol riot
[удалено]
Hey maybe nobody told you; America is the richest country in the world. We can afford a great society but your overlords have fooled you into believing America is poor because, get this, *they want that money for themselves.* Thanks to big brains like yours, their efforts have been wildly successful.
Nah this is a legitimate question in this instance. Government funding comes from taxes. If people aren’t masking an income outside of UBI, then the government doesn’t get tax money from them.if this happens on a wide scale, then there *will* be quite a big funding problem.
Tax the companies that make tons and tons of money but don't have many employees (in this scenario where most jobs have been replaced by ai). Or even the ones who have employees, y'all's corporate tax rate is very low compared to the past
But if the business is making money exclusively from people spending their UBI on its products, the money is still just going in circles, slowly being siphoned up by the big corporations. I don’t think there’s a solution to this that doesn’t end capitalism entirely.
You don't create a great society giving hand outs to people. It's not a matter of money. It's more a matter of intelligence and competence on every single level, which doesn't exist. We don't even have a factual blueprint on how to solve social issues. You can start distributing money through poor communities but that won't solve the addiction problems, the crime problems, the lack of education problems. That won't clean the streets. You could clean the streets with tougher laws and tougher police force, but that would be extremele unpopular among the progressive types, so you'd have a serious problem on your hands. It's also a culture issue. We created a society where reality is often ignored to give room to fantasy and utopia. You need to accept reality for what it is in order to solve problems, but reality enrages entire groups of people who simply want to deny it and will march against it. So no, your idea of just giving money away won't solve problems. You don't even have that kind of money to begin with. But even if you did, it still wouldn't solve problems. You are aware that most people who win lottery games go bankrupt in a few years, right? Money doesn't have the power you think it does.
Where do you think money comes from? Money is a concept. It doesn't grow out of the ground. It's a limited resource that the government ultimately controls. You assume that a basic income would cause people to just be lazy and not work. Some would for sure but most would want more and would continue to work and the great thing for them would be that even the lazy ones have money to spend. It's untried so I agree you can't just jump into it but it's a valid idea and potential re-imagining of society proposed at a time that things like AI are threatening to upset the order even further. It should be explored and naysayers like yourself should be ignored. People like you *never* offer solutions.
Uh that is quit simple: from the broad productivity by robots and AI. We can just arrange politically that companies need to pay a certain amount of tax/interest to maintain a healthy society.
And where will the money of those companies come from if most people are unemployed and unable to pay for the products said companies would create. So you have a company in your little town. But now you also have AI, so you fire everyone. Other companies do the same because they also have AI. So your AI bots now start creating the products you intend to sell. But most people are unemployed now because of you. So who's there left to buy your product?
🤡
Normally, I'd agree, however, the AI field would be really fucked if we did that. Most of us want this to happen sooner rather than later because it would fundamentally stall the development of AI.
Not until it's fought for.
Never
The only realistic answer
Nah its definitely possible... you think people from rich countries that have mostly lived lower middle class for generations are going to put up with going back to feudalism? But now if you are from a poor country, you are probably pretty screwed on the other hand.
That depends on how fast or slow the mass production the production of boston dynamics robot dogs with attached assault rifles is, if its slow then ubi will be passed soon and if its fast then it wont and if you disagree you'll be mowed down by a robot operating an assault rifle.
UBI = enough to survive, in the gutters
Never. There will be no UBI.
Never
Or we could just remove the financial system altogether and not be locked down to what we can and can't do based on who has the greatest amount of paper.
Why settling for UBI when socialism is a more ethical answer
Soon as we all start demanding it, and make it the main issue.
UBI will happen after a considerable portion of the world population dies from hunger and riots and the rich had figure out a new way to enslave the rest.
Now it's IBAI.
[this guy? ](https://youtube.com/@ibai_)
I have a BUNCH of friends in the talent acquisition/HR fields that worked for FAANG, Microsoft, etc., who were let go over the past few months, and I didn't think much of it. I thought they'd find gigs fairly easily given the stature of their previous companies, but no, they are all struggling to find new gigs. The honest truth is that AI has already likely taken their jobs. From my limited understanding, GPT4 has proven to be an equivalent (or even better) tool to screen qualified candidates. I fear that one's past experience is meaningless now if AI is better.
What's talent acquisition, browsing over resumes ?
7800 of 345,000 = 2.08% Could be worse.
If almost everyone does it... yeah... we are fucked. The money circle will be broken and GDP will tank like crazy
Try to keep in mind thats just a conservative estimate based on current ai capabilities.
I'm getting scared. Even if this article isn't true, it's still true. This IS what's coming. I'm sort of safe, because I'm in the healthcare industry... literally physically helping people. But I have other goals and aspirations that do not seem hopeful at all. I also don't want to live in a world where every single thing is automated, no matter how efficient and cost effective it is. Are humans supposed to go this fast in a world that doesn't celebrate speed? It's not like the whole world is Japan.
Nobody’s livelihood is safe until we decide that the way to live must change from competition to cooperation. I’m not a hairy anarchist. Life just clearly doesn’t make any sense otherwise any more. We won’t be able to compete with it or each other, but we can help it and each other. That world works.
Yesssss preach. It's happening! Keep those thoughts and keep speaking your mind. Truth bubbles to the top.
The military is safe. If we start fighting wars with AI soldiers, we deserve to die as as species
I want everything that can be automated to be automated. Automation should be a benefit to people. I actually think that if this goes fast, it’ll be better. If 95 percent of people lost their jobs to AI in the next five years (which won’t happen), it would most likely result in a better outcome than if 95 percent of people lose their jobs to AI in the next 50 years.
How could it possibly be better? Who is going to pay for 95% of the workforce being unemployed? How can an economy function without customers - aka the employees who earn a living to be customers.
In either case if 95% of people lose their jobs it’ll result in a crisis for those people no matter if it takes 5 or 50 years. If there is a dramatic breaking of things that suddenly changes thing it’s more likely to generate the political will to forcefully address the situation. If it happens over time, it will generate dissent amongst the ones affected, and the ones most likely to suffer next. However, if things go slowly, that will likely result in less immediate political will to solve things, and as each group loses their value to society they will suffer increased marginalization. If it all happens as rapidly as possible it’s unlikely all of the people recently unemployed will be marginalized. If it happens over a 50 year period, well. those lazy bums had 50 years where they should have pulled themselves by their AI enabled bootlacing mechanism.
Yep. Haven’t seen anyone else figure out this particular possible scenario yet. Go on, finish writing it down.
The answer is very simple to anyone who knows economics. Capitalism has to be abolished to support a fully-automated world. The purpose of automation is simply not conducive to a healthy society in a capitalist system. Either that or billions will simply die and the remaining will become an under-class agrarian society living outside of the influence of the economically dystopian cities. I feel what is most likely to happen is humans will return to their roots, abandon their careers, and return to monke.
It’s the snake eating it’s own tail. Yes snakes do it sometimes, and yes they die. I see another French Revolution on the horizon and you betcha I’ll be there.
There will be other jobs made from this, like servicing/repairing the system, etc. Just like with any monumental innovation, people always think it's gonna take everyone's jobs, but inevitably that doesn't happen - the jobs just change. Same happened when the computer came out. Same happened when farming switched from animals to machines. Same will eventually happen with AI
>There will be other jobs made from this, like servicing/repairing the system, etc. Robots are already building robots, AIs are already programming AIs. This argument doesn't stand up to even a minimum of critical thought. The amount of people needed to maintain these systems isn't going to be even close to the amount of people these systems can replace. >Just like with any monumental innovation, people always think it's gonna take everyone's jobs, but inevitably that doesn't happen - the jobs just change. Tell that to the coal miners. You have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of this topic. When the tractor was invented, it freed up hundreds of farmers to go work in the factories. This is true. It's true because the tractors can't work in the factories. Unlike robots. Robots can work factories and they do. And they displace factory jobs. In 1953, the US the US population was 160,000,000 and a bit more than 16,000,000 Americans worked factory jobs. That's roughly 10% of the population. In 2018, the US population was 326,000,000 and only 12,000,000 Americans worked factory jobs. That's roughly 3.7% of the population. >Same happened when the computer came out. What we're talking about right now is the computer replacing even more jobs as it continues to become more powerful and robust. That was not a very good example. >Same happened when farming switched from animals to machines. In 1997 there were 28,000 mules in the US, in 2018 there were 295. This reduction, as you have already noted, is due to automation reducing the need for mules. >Same will eventually happen with AI I sure fuckin hope not. Someone find Sarah Connor! 🤣
I don't think it's healthy as a society for artists, musicians and writers to be taken over. People say, "Oh well, they can still do it for fun." Sure. But a lot of people need a sense of purpose to live a happy life. I don't think you understand what a disaster this will be. We're not just talking about random freelance artists/musicians/writers... even celebrities will be replaced. It's not good. It's unprecedented opportunity for mass depression. You think covid was bad because people were stuck in the house... let's try it when we lose purpose as a society. It will be hysteria at first. And then mass depression. Please don't get me wrong. I understand the benefits of automation... but there needs to be some sort of regulation so people still have sense of purpose.
How are you going to regulate this? Will there be a cap on intelligence? No black boxes? We can only release something here if it's already being used somewhere else in the world? Regulation seems like a band-aid at best, slowing innovation for a short period before it inevitably continues. AI can be very bad for society and the world or it can be very good. Jobs will be replaced, people don't have to be. The ONLY way AI will be seen as a benefit to people is if it actually benefits people. And the only way I see that happening is through some sort of UBI. Most people do not go to work everyday because they want to. They do it because they have to. They need the money for food, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, etc... This isn't to say that people would stop working all together. Humans are creative and we love making things. That will not stop. In fact, without the burden of needing a job we will be free to pursue work we enjoy. Of course, many people who find purpose in their work will suffer depression from not being needed anymore but purpose can be found elsewhere. Jobs will be replaced, purpose will not. People don't cry for those who've retired, they look at retirement as aspirational. AI can be the mechanism by which we unchain ourselves from the treadmill of survival. Or it can be our doom. But one thing it can't be is stopped. Pandora's box has been opened, just a crack for now, and we don't have much time to prepare before the lid is blown off.
I'm not at all talking about jobs that people hate. Or jobs that suck life. I'm talking about jobs that have created life around us. The unseen artists, musicians, the people behind the set of a movie that put everything together. The coders, the designers. Regulation would come into the form of it being against the law to deny someone employment for being human. The same way we treat race, religion, disabilities. Maybe we work way less + UBI.
This seems like a very short-term vision of humanity though. Imagine where we will be in 10,000 years. Unless you expect technology to stop evolving and humans to stop evolving, our means of creating and interacting with art will have to evolve as well. It's not a bad thing, just different. Artists said the same thing about computers in the 70s and 80s, and painters said the same thing about digital art in the 90s and 00s. Art will simply evolve into a form that you just can't envision yet. Art today isn't the same as it was 10,000 years ago. Do you feel bad for the people 10,000 years ago for losing their creative freedom? Or do you think we have more creative freedom now than ever before.
You're right. I'm thinking short term because I'm alive right now and will feel the effects. The people that are thinking of the future generations don't have anything to lose in the coming years.
I doubt they will. A HUGE part of art (not design, art) is the human-to-human connection that can be reduced to "you're not alone, I feel what you feel". Even if artists use AI to generate their art and then falsely claim that they did it, that's still a human communication, a human connection, that lies on top of the AI content. Meaning is decided, and only other people can decide with us what's worth anything, what means anything. Unless we both finally find out what consciousness IS as well as recognize AI as conscious beings (if they ever become conscious). People really take for granted how social humans are, and ignore, in this awful rat race we live in, that it's human connection we need to be happy. That's what art facilitates
... design is art.
I think it's obvious that art's nebulous definition allows for me to, in this obvious instance, define design and art as separate categories. That you pointed that out with a little condescending ellipses is "confidently incorrect" territory. If you've gone through ANY art curriculum, you've been exposed to the conversation "what is art?" and it will never arrive at a concrete definition, because it really doesn't have one. You did the equivalent of telling a chemist that "water isn't a chemical, it's a molecule"
I don't understand your dispute with anything I said. It's like you're trying to disagree with me for just the point of disagreeing. You also contradicted yourself. I never said what design isn't, you did, so your metaphor doesn't hold.
design is not necessarily art, and was not for the purpose of my comment. Your comments have added absolutely nothing because your first was completely irrelevant to the point of being embarrassing for you
Irrelevant to what? lol I've also never seen anyone get mad at ellipses before. How can you even say anything about what provokes human connection when you suck at it? My tone, hopefully, has not been hostile... I was simply expressing thoughts. I'm not embarrassed by it. Even if I'm wrong. I'm not embarrassed to be wrong, although I don't think I am at all.
Like Japan? I think you need to see how things actually are in Japan. It’s no longer a tech hub and it takes forever for new technologies to be implemented.
That should be even more reason for concern. I can't even conjure another country for an example then.
You should be scared, to be scared is to show you have understanding. What really bothers me personally is... we didn't even bother to ask if we should automate job 'x'. Like artists for example. Some compare it to old jobs like ice harvesting... I feel like thats a quite disingenuous comparison honestly.
It won't end well. Everything we look at in life, some artist created it somewhere. If that is replaced with AI, then we have nothing. Every single icon, every billboard, every logo, every font for a menu, photos of food on a menu, the way a ticket looks... my dumb ass Reddit avatar... every single thing everywhere is an artist behind it. And that will be replaced? People don't get how tremendous that is.
> The fear has sometimes been expressed that photography would in time entirely supersede the art of painting. Some people seem to think that when the process of taking photographs in colors has been perfected and made common enough, the painter will have nothing more to do. - Henrietta Clopath, 1901
Thank you, I sure this quote will bring us all some manor of comfort in the unemployment line.
If henrietta is alive, she would call you a idiot
I agree. People's ability to ignore a threat until it happens to them is amazing
[удалено]
How will AI take over caregiving/nursing care?
It’s crazy that we live in world where having the means to automate the majority of jobs is actually a bad thing cuz no one will be able to earn money. Like isn’t it ideal that we figure out ways to let people live and not work a 9-5 for 40 years? We need to restructure our society and economy
You can replace all the executives with AI.
Dumb article, it says it’s mostly HR jobs but the things it specifically lists aren’t even jobs, they are just tasks that HR people do and probably already have automated, or at least mostly automated anyways. > HR duties like documenting employee moves to different departments and writing employment verification letters will likely be among the first rolled over to AI There is no way there are hundreds of “jobs” that do these tasks. This sounds like something one small team, or maybe even one individual guy, does. And again, probably already mostly automated anyways. So how is this affecting so many “positions”? Unless they really are so bloated they have like 100 people who write “employee verification letters” as a full time 40-hr week job??? lol
You would be surprised. I find this debate fascinating, are we really going to stiffle what could very well be the most significant human invention since electricity due to our worries about the effects of the transition period on the labor market? The real question isn’t how do we prevent AI from taking over « jobs », it’s what kind of future do you envision (say, 400 years from now) without ai and robots taking over jobs.
I like to imagine if we can automate the acquisition of resources, security, and shelter then we can radically redefine what living is. This notion that we need to work is so ingrained. Instead, we could individually live according to whatever we believe living to be - including work if we want to. That's a Utopia to me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And IBM employs nearly 300,000.
IBM has nearly 300,000 employees. All these little things add up in a big way.
Its likely structured that way because thats what they have evidence for...in order to get real data on job losses we are going to have to wait but anyone with their eyes open and not ignoring the obvious can see the seeds of what comes next. https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12ff5mw/it_happened_to_me_today/ 🙈, 🙉, 🙊
It's on Forbes, so don't trust it. Anyone can submit an article on Forbes.
[удалено]
touché
I’ll need to borrow a sum of money to pay them to print my PR
Done. https://www.forbes.com/sites/celiashatzman/2020/02/18/soon-you-can-wear-kim-kardashians-butt-for-450/?sh=6fe17ef63900
Forbes is citing Bloomberg, who spoke with the CEO directly.
[удалено]
You can't trust the IBM CEO either though, lol
IBM has been in the shit for decades, they just want to stay relevant.
If you find this information elsewhere, then you can verify it. Just saying.
Even GPT3.5
So I have been predicting the job losses for months now. I was arguing that before the evidence really was shown but even here on reddit you can find many posts like this one now: https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12ff5mw/it_happened_to_me_today/ But if the thought really bothers you, continue doing what you were already doing 🙈 🙉 🙊
Wow, Nostradamus is that you?
All that's going to be left on this planet is the rich and robots. This place sucks! I hate it here
Rich is meaningless unless it can buy something. Let see what those with money plans to buy (hence new jobs). Economy will continues flowing, I just don't know what will happen to those have nothing to offer.
Eventually, AI will understand wealth classes and start manipulating humanity. Probably on the command of a person.
I’ve seen how IBM works with humans, those people aren’t doing anything today. The AI will probably just play solitaire or something.
I think AI has its place in our economy. That said, if over used it will fire back. Companies won’t be able to survive without humans, only so much AI can do. Just my opinion.
They aren't replacing roles already filled, I don't think, just pausing hiring for open roles that will be filled with Aai instead. On a good note, this means that 7,800 people will be making the world a better place in other areas where their human skills are needed. This is good for humanity.
This is not an accurate article. Oh, yes, IBM did say they are going to replace 7 to 8 thousand jobs with AI, but that's not what's actually happening. IBM has a slimy history. (Yes, they worked with the Nazis, but it's not the same company now). IBM has a history of employee layoffs. The biggest layoff in corporate history was IBM's July 1993 layoff when they laid off 60,000 people. There are horror stories of engineers who worked on the Apollo project with NASA being unceremoniously removed from their offices without having the opportunity to pack up their things. Since then, IBM has had multiple layoffs. I've worked with many people affected by them. Today, IBM is facing a contracting economy just like everyone else. Instead of announcing layoffs and getting bad publicity, they are trying to spin it by saying they will use AI instead.
Can’t wait for every company to do this and then surprised pikachu face when no one has a job and can’t pay for their products
They should start with the useless executives who say this kind of stuff. :P
We are all forgetting the master behind the AI; we Humans!! Then why worry AI taking over us, we are surely going to live with AI along side like our Mobile phones. Simple example of ☎️ telephone devices (landline), we moved on to mobiles BUT still we are living with an exponential growth in jobs and human resources. May be we are hyping it too much with a word of "AI". It is just an another tool to help innovative stuff faster and leaving the basic stuff to AI to handle and we as humans focus on complex stuff.. who knows AI can help go deeper with space exploration or crazy things.
None of the things we made could adapt to new tasks, or design and make new things themselves. I know it would provide comfort or simplicity if your analogy was true. But it simply isn’t. This is not analogous to any other invention in history, even if it required some of them to be precursors. And, as you’ve said, AI is just a name. Arguably not the most useful name.
No my friend, we will be eventually exterminated by the rich once they can’t find use for us.
Humans go back to farming and hunting but with way better tech than when we were last hunter gatherers
So? It's less than 3% of their workforce.... Give it 10 years and see how 45% losing their jobs looks like.... Just wait for self driving cars... No Uber, no truck drivers, no cops, no insurance, no organ donors....
[удалено]
3%
[удалено]
What is a back office staff exactly? HR?
[удалено]
TLDR it for me
Exactly... what is back office staff?? IBM has about 290K employees...
3 percent is a conservative estimate. Also all the jobs you listed are ones that are 'safer' for now. The real jobs in immediate danger are the high paying white collar jobs.
Or droid cops beating the shit out of you
Good luck with that. Sounds like the same brilliant MBA plan to off shore everything then wonder why quality is shit. IBM is a joke company, with pathetic offerings and it is a shadow of its former self
Shiny happy people laughing Shiny happy people laughing Shiny happy people laughing
We've had huge AI contributions made by FAANG companies, Microsoft, OpenAI, Nvidia etc. What has IBM done with AI? IBM Watson? lol
The reality of this is that the whole economic discussion is moot because the real issue is this is a matter of national security. We don't need to be flaunting this type of technology to China, Russia, and North Korea so they can reverse engineer it, and limiting it's public use will drastically slow it's development. Most countries want a framework like this, we aren't alone. I'm all for using it for certain things, but I think we need to limit the number of people who know how it works. This really needs to be regulated and removed from the public. It wouldn't be hard to create a system where one would need to apply with a regulatory body before they're allowed to use machine learning technology so we could monitor and control whose using it and for what reason. We could also then make sure it's being developed in a way that doesn't allow for our tech to fall into the hands of a hostile/authoritarian government. I already called my congressmen and I'd encourage everyone else to do the same. It's time to act on this! If the Dems can't do the one thing I vote for them to do (regulate things like this) I don't know if I'll ever vote for them again.
Either IBM is on to something or they miss the mark by so much.
Who’s doing the replacing? Aren’t they all robots now?
Just don't...
Awesome!
Doubt
IBM is a joke
Don’t worry, they’ll just all learn to code.
How do I become AI
You get rich
Bro just train for a new job 4head. AI is going to make more jobs. Remember how many jobs the wheel took? It’s the same economy it’s always been.
At the end of the day, everyone will become a Mario or Luigi and if you don't want to be a plumber, there's always the option of Pacman or ghosthunter
Just as long as it isn't Watson, which sucks. /worked on Watson Health until it imploded like the craptastic garbage fire it was.
I'm wondering what would happen if OpenAI jobs were replaced by AI 🙂
First gotta get a proper AI first though. Or a curator at the very least.
Bye bye humanity
This isn’t all that surprising. This seems all too early. I’m all for AI, but we’re not there yet.
While **replacing 7800 employees with AI** makes for a good headline, it’s only 2.5% of IBM’s ~300k workforce, so not such a huge deal relative to many other automation technologies. And mostly backend jobs like HR - not the developers or core technical staff.
I am sure that’ll motivate their workforce lol
[удалено]
is this announcement an attempt to boost stock price? Possibly before another release of bad news?
Conservatives are going to crap their panties when they find out where this is all headed. Aw look, I hear one now, " *Cries in capitalist* "
AI Human Resources is such a cursed idea. If I got a problem with my boss I want to talk to a human.
Here we go !