Generative AI has a number of uses that are already widespread, and I don't see going anywhere. Things like clipart and stock art, and initial contact customer support. AI automates these jobs, making it far, far cheaper than hiring a human to do the same job. It only takes one higher-end PC to do a job that a human would have had to be paid for. The economic incentive is already there.
Furthermore, Generative AI is a genie thats been let out of the bottle, and I don't see ever being put back in. These models are just files, which have already been replicated and become widespread. Sure, progress may slow as the "We're making a general purpose AI." bubble bursts, but if these tools work, they'll continue to be developed, and people will continue to get better at manipulating or augmenting them. I don't see any reason that would stop generative AI from continuing to exist from this point forward.
Generative AI isn't going anywhere, and will replace a number of jobs.
Change my view.
This is a hard one to debate because "a number of jobs" isn't really a statement you can counter. Yeah it'll probably replace somebody, the question is how significant will the impact be and will those people be able to get other jobs/will any jobs be created by it. Currently it seems to be creating far more jobs than it's costing, mostly just building places to put servers.
What you're probably looking for: Generative models are just an algorithm, arguably even a fairly simple one. We're already seeing the limits of how far we can push the current paradigm of model structures so without a big change in how they work things may stagnate. The problem with the current state of the art is that the average person can, if not always specifically call out generative model output, definitely note the mediocre quality. The most promising use case is writing certain types of code because it's repetitive and predictable in structure, but even there they reliably barf on moderately complex tasks where you can't easily let them run forever closed loop (as in, they can't self-test the program because it generates output that isn't text). Most other use cases fare far worse so if we're not seeing mass software layoffs I'm not convinced we'll see much damage elsewhere.
The only other case where one could argue it's truly all-powerful is scams because the scams deliberately target the bottom of the bell curve already and the models just make it easier to automate. So, does putting scammer foot soldiers out of a job count?
Having a local, "age" flag used for filtering content isn't a bad idea.
2mon 18d ago by sh.itjust.works/u/PlzGivHugs in changemyview@sh.itjust.works