What's the main issue then? Or did you mean economic stuff is the main issue

I guess the main disagreement here is the speed and severity of the economic upheaval. We see some great looking thing that AI can create, such as images or videos, and then we realize that the application of such is still 5+ years away from being useful.

Just like when GPT was first announced...it took like 4, 5 years to become "useful" but even that first popularized version didn't really have any real application.

It's developing faster than some other tech, sure. But it's not going to be that dramatically different. Companies can't simply change their entire infrastructure within a quarter, and it also takes a lot to convince them to make the change in the first place.

That wasn't my response. My response is that this is already how call centers mostly operate, and since the innovations with AI, it hasn't really changed much other than voice recognition replacing pressing the numbers on the screen.

So:

Point 1: You disagree that call centers have been replaced with automated systems in parts in the last decade? Such as banking being done completely with a voice automated system?

Point 2: You disagree that AI is about the same as it is now? You're able to call the DMV to get that form corrected with AI? You're able to call microsoft to get that return processed by AI?

Point 3: Can you name a single piece of art that has been generated by AI and was able to be used in any specific need medium, such as an app, game, piece of architecture?

Point 4: Can you name a single song made by AI that was even semi enjoyable?

As I responded in my other comment, as far as I can tell, all but one of those names have not actually worked in modern AI development. Just having software knowledge does not mean you understand AI.

It's hard to trust people that just look at it from the outside, or from a relative perspective, rather than people that actually work in it every day that understand it's limitations are pretty defined, and it won't be replacing most jobs outside of menial task jobs. Of which, I think it's only like any other tech advancement. People that chop trees and then get laid off when the chainsaw is made because they need half as many people... I mean, tough shit? There's no shortage of work out there right now, at least in the US. And more jobs in small companies especially are blossoming so far with the advancement of AI, which is nothing more than a win in my book.

Corporations are much more necessary now than they will be later with AI tools accessible to anyone. If it shakes up some jobs and creates some layoffs, I'd say that's a worthy price to pay to shift the workforce to smaller businesses

That's not why PauseAI is out there. The regulation wouldn't be to stop Ai from getting smarter than us. It would be to regulate it's application.

AI simply will become smarter than most humans. That's a given. And that's not a bad thing either.

What AI doesn't have, is desire. Emotion. True creativity. That's what we have to give AI in order for it to really take off.

We need huge reform to make it work, true. But to pause AI is to pause development of an incredible tool that we can use to fight climate change, colonize the stars, improve conditions for everyone around the world. Just like the microchip, just like the internet. We shouldn't pause AI. Maybe we can't even afford to, as a species.

The biggest concern is corporations phasing out human workers. But just as corporations use this tool, so do small businesses. And similar to the microchip, internet and now AI, this will just be another tool that makes small businesses more viable and more common.

I think u/x4446 said it improperly. For example the digitalization of everything definitely killed off a lot of jobs and a lot of people sufferred. But it opened just as many jobs as it closed. It will produce more things, and people will consume more. Circle of consumerism. More consumption leads to more jobs.

People just have to be willing to change with the times.

As of now, graphic designs cannot make specifically what you want. Not really. It doesn't have a human understanding. And I don't think it really ever will.

Unless you're okay with any random generic thing that you want, AI is not replacing graphic designers.

And when it does start being useful, it still won't be enough to replace them for a long time. It will be graphic designers using AI to do their jobs more efficiently.

Same with writers. It's actually really hilarious if people think that writers are replaceable by AI right now. AI is laughably bad at anything more than one-dimensional, and it constantly loses it's train of thought.

AI can write and write and write, but it doesn't understand what makes true quality writing, and likely never will. It's more than the exact writing etiquette and things that you learn when studying how to write well. It's a feeling and human experience that you're translating to words on a page.

At most I can see a writer wanting to create a given passage, asking the AI to help, the AI writes an example and the writer adjusts the page. But to replace a writer, that's just silly. Just like if an AI gave me a million different examples of a visual design, I can pick one that I think is cool, but it'll take a human visual designer to find the actual best one, and even then they will likely need to make adjustments to invoke the appropriate emotional response.

Accountants is a better example. Jobs that take no creativity but are pretty much just humans acting as computers will be replaced. I don't think that's a bad thing. People just need to be aware and proactive about it. I can see at most some regulation there to help new jobs be formed before the old ones become obsolete, but I would rather AI advance than wait for people to take action, because average people are famous for not wanting to change, even if it's for the better.

It's hard to see it, but this is really as silly as protesting the chainsaw while people are cutting down trees with handaxes.

Just like any new piece of useful tech

"most of the top comments" I never said 1 and 2 specifically.....

1 and 2 are not claiming the opposite, they are neutral in the claim you're making.

And what does it matter if they occurred later? What you see after some time is the comments people agree with the most... which is more accurate than just seeing what was first

And if you look low enough on the other side of things when it gets posted, you'll see the same. It's really just selection bias. Maybe there's a tendency for one side or the other to be put in a certain context, but overall people at least on this sub are generally pretty equivalent about this topic for both genders.

I agree that it should be regulated and I agree that full on self-aware AI could be an extinction level event if not regulated.

But it's completely laughable to think we're anywhere near that. Even if we continue full throttle, I'd be genuienly impressed if it happens within the decade. I've seen a total of 1 reputable source that actually has a modern understanding of AI that has claimed as much.

I use AI every single day in my workflow, and I dive into some of the codebases of AI interfaces. I'm aware of it's capabilities and it's limitations. It's an amazing and useful tool, but in the past years of development we've seen the progression that it's making. It's great at certain types of art and voice synthesizing. It's great at very simple and direct tasks. It's terrible at anything that requires higher levels of thinking. And it's not getting that much "smarter" each year.

But most importantly? It doesn't do anything it isn't directly told to do.

If we wait for congress or other lawmakers to catch up, we'll never get anywhere. Most governments don't even have proper laws for internet regulation, and that's been in the average person's hands for over 20 years now.

The risk is not that great.

The people that you cited are not the people that are working on the AI that are actually being used, with the exception of Sutskever.

Geofferey has good background in the field, but not in the modern applciation or systems that are being used today. At best he has a conceptual understanding of what it could be, but not what it is and not what it will be in the next 5-10 years, at least as far as his actual qualifications and experience suggests.

Yoshua is a similar story. His real work and experience is decades outdated. It's unlikely he has an accurate view on modern day ML and other AI.

Sutskever is the most reputable name here, as he actually has a more modern understanding of AI. But I can't find his claim that pause / stop AI is necessary. Can you cite it?

My point being, the "big names" that are signing this overall, are not actually experienced in modern day software / ai development overall.

Probably personal property tax not being collected is the biggest part then, because the biggest fine you get is all connected back to not paying property tax on your vehicle in my state

There's always some kind of process, otherwise you'll get fined for late payments on the property tax or whatnot. And the property tax plus a really small liability insurance fee are the baseline requirements.

But yeah how you make the claim that it's not in use may vary

The 3rd 4th and 5th top comment all are saying that it's fucked up the girl said that.

Is it so uncommon for people to occasionally run a generator at a location with no hookups?

Yep exactly. People don't like change, but tough shit. If call centers become obsolete, I mean, do call center people really love their job so much that they are that upset about finding something new? I really doubt it

I agree it needs regulations but not in this context for the purpose of saving human labor/jobs. No car, plane or medicinal regulstion is there to save jobs.

Call centers have been replaced by computers in some form or fashion for over a decade. And ai is not really replacing them much better than they were 5 years ago. You still need a human at about the same times.

Artists are not being replaced by ai in any real way. People that actually buy art that support artists, are buying the art for the authenticity, so it being made by AI ruins that for them.

Same with music. AI firstly sucks at it, and Secondly people enjoy music made by humans. The source matters.

But all in all, it's just like how before power tools were big you needed 100 people to build a house and now you need 20. This is a net positive for the world, it's just going to make some people uncomfortable because they have to find new work. But so far, AI has not reduced the possibility of the average person getting a job, it just has forced some people to find other work, which has always been an inevitable result of technological advancement.

Just legally was all I meant. I agree you shouldn't need it necessarily if it's stationary and personal, but being honest, too many people would just lie and say they weren't using it when they really are

A very small amount of "most experiened" but the majority are not people in field that really understand it. Not all tech people know anything about ai

Dang really?

I'm most upset about how little I've done that DLC, I've played the game to death but missed so much content there.

It seems really really weird that he wouldn't know about the Enclave. He knows so much about the NCR and Legion, how would he miss the history of the NCR and Enclave?

It's so funny that it's always the people that know the least about some new bit of tech that are the most scared of it.

AI is not going to be the thing that makes your life worse. New and more efficient tools have by far and wide made it easier for smaller companies to thrive and therefore widening the middle class and enlarging small businesses. I work in software and AI is an absolute win.

It sucks to need to change, but if we don't change, we won't improve as a species and we won't be able to tackle the problems that lay ahead of us. Wake up and use AI, don't protest the progression of technology.

I didn't say that nobody knew about it. Just saying it didn't seem like something that most people knew about. We're both speaking anecdotes so who knows whose right

The majority of people that grew up in the 80s wouldn't have been able to tell you about it until much later, the majority of people that grew up in the 00s and 2010s know a lot about it. That's the discrepency I'm talking about. But yeah 2000 - 2024 I guess I never considered that decades because time flies it doesn't feel like it's been that long

we've all collectively know for decades

That's not true. Climate scientists and people that were exposed to the knowledge, and a small portion of others were. But the real wave of climate science and knowledge beyond a surface level only really blossomed in the late 2000s forward.

I think more than consumerism, we want constant improvement. We are deceived into thinking many of the "improvements" we are getting have any merit. When in reality they take a larger toll on our wallets and climate

Except we won't make those changes, and we shouldn't have to.
Most of our greenhouses gas emissions come from power generation and industry.
We must accept that our electricity needs will only ever increase, and then the industry generating the power needs to clean up its act.

I take issue with this attitude honestly. I'm not saying that normal individuals are really extremely at fault - most of us know it's certain cultural norms formed by large corporations and governments.

But it's just tone-deaf or really head-in-the-sand to act like as individuals we have no responsibility at all. The corporations and governments need us to survive, and our demand specifically fuels corporate behavior.

To say we shouldn't have to make changes, suggests that we should continue down the trend we've been going down, where we consume more and more and more. This is not possible without individuals wanting to. What it takes to make our phones, computers, etc is more and more intensive because we just need that next best thing, even though 10 years ago our phones could easily text, call, take pictures, access apps like facebook, etc...

What it takes to make our cars is getting worse and worse because we just need that larger, newer vehicle and we just need a new one every 5 years rather than having a vehicle that lasts 20 or even more years, which isn't unheard of for a car built in the 90s, and contrary to popular belief even modern cars tend to last at least that long, we just don't see them that way anymore.

That's partly due to car and phone manufacturers doing planned obsolescence, but come on, be honest. The vast majority of people just get a new phone or car because they want that new fresh thing, not because their last one was actually all that bad. a 2008 vehicle still runs pretty well if it was taken care of, but most will opt out of them.

This change that everyone wants corporations to make? This is the result. Us having less new things, making things last longer, and stop obsessing over the bigger and better things that we don't really even benefit from them being bigger and better over the rush of having something new. Whether it comes from corporations or from individuals, the result is similar if we want true climate action.

It's completely unreasonable to expect individuals to change their behavior collectively. History has taught us that given the opportunity to act against our long term self-interest in favor of our short-term self interest, we will. So rather than trying to fight that inevitability we need to change our environment so that doing so isn't harmful.

All recent major civil rights cases have only survived and thrived under collective actions starting on an individual level. M.L.K. wasn't some huge corporate overlord that made decisions from the top to make change, he was just one person in a movement of millions of people that took consistent individual action to make change.

Gay marriage didn't just suddenly become legal, protests and pride parades and other people individually choosing to go out of their way made that happen.

It's really not all that different. I think we have two choices. Accept our fate our stand up together. As it's always been

I agree we should do what we can to make certain things less harmful. The thing is, we already are, but people don't care and choose the worse way because they just don't care to even acknowledge that there's anything they can do. Choosing paper rather than plastic is a minor inconvenience at most. Using reusable bags again, minor inconvenience. Conserving power, being mindful about your purchases but purchasing the same thing, all these things are easy and possible today. But we choose not to do them. That's the problem. Willful ignorance and spiteful inaction/counter action to climate solutions.