[juvvel]

Comments like this always read as "we can already extrapolate that everything we do will be done better by a machine soon". Pushing back against this argument isn't just ignorance or avoidance of change. It just asks the relevant question of whether we can be so sure that AI does everything "better". But how dare we challenge the hubris of tech bros, right?

[HervalFreire]

Naw there are many possible futures. There is nothing saying the trendline is absolute. However...

The future predicted via extrapolation of a trendline is unfortunately more probable and more realistic then a future predicted via mistrust of AI.

Artists have already formed lawsuits against companies that own LLMs, this one in the article already involves an artist complaining about his job being more or less replaced.

You have to be next level delusional not to consider the extrapolation to programming.

[juvvel]

Oh, I do believe programming as a profession is at risk and will change a lot, if not rendered obsolete. What I'm talking about is this idea of "just get used to the fact that there is no human skill that won't be replicable by AI in 2-10 years". It's a very bleak view of the future and our own biological complexity. We need to remember that we are the ones inventing the AI in the first place. We are limited by our imperfect ability to understand ourselves. It will get better, sure, there will be emergent properties, but there's no need to reject the inherent value of humanity even if it happens to produce less economically viable output.

[HervalFreire]

Not everything will be replaced, but you can extrapolate that much of what we do will be replaced.

The thing that is harder to replace is the versatility of the human form. Manual labor can't fully be replaced because robotics have yet to catch up.

>there's no need to reject the inherent value of humanity

There's no fundamental rejection here. Capitalism simply selects the most efficient methodology. If humans arent the most efficient methodology for a given task then capitalism eliminated that methodology. That's the logical extrapolation. You subjective opinions on humanities worth is irrelevant to the most likely outcome.

[juvvel]

Capitalism and its value system is subjective, too. It's not set in stone. I believe we can still steer away from profit as the sole driver of, well, everything, if we want to.

[HervalFreire]

It's possible. But unlikely.

Historically speaking, from crypto to AI, the market constantly evolves towards the next most profitable thing.

Only regulatory systems like the government has the tendency to temper such things (see the Fed and rising interest rates). However do note that capitalist entities have infiltrated the government and have huge sway over it's regulatory policies meaning that anti-business regulatory policies are unlikely to occur.

All of this just means that my conclusions are most likely going to play out. Barring some event that will cause intense negative public reaction.

[juvvel]

> However do note that capitalist entities have infiltrated the government and have huge sway over it's regulatory policies meaning that anti-business regulatory policies are unlikely to occur.

Maybe this is the case in the US, the EU is known for being much more strict in its regulations, which is often ridiculed by the rest of the world. Those same people are going to hope for regulations once we see the effects of the current Wild West that is AI.