[JohnFen]

> Worrying about censorship and job losses is so myopic my eyes are cringing just thinking about it.

Why?

I'm not concerned about censorship, but I am deeply concerned about the potential economic fallout. Why shouldn't I be? I would genuinely love to have one less worry on my plate.

[fnordpiglet]

Stuffing a genie back in the bottle is the appropriate saying. Instead of trying hard to keep the genie in the hands of a few megacorps for the safety of the children, perhaps the right way to deal with it is to let everyone figure out how to use the technology to create as many jobs as we can? John Henry did beat the steam engine in the end, but at a terrible cost and in no way did it undo the invention. But when I go to a construction site it’s full of highly paid experts with great benefits ensuring the stream engine properly digs the tunnel correctly. Instead of unskilled people slinging hammers in half slavery we have engineers digging twice as many tunnels that are ten times more complex crawling with well employed humans crawling the worksite.

I think worry isn’t the right response. I think the right response is awareness of the issues and broad collaborative innovation to democratize the tool for as many people as possible, and let us build twice as many things that are ten times more complex with the same people working.

[JohnFen]

> I think the right response is awareness of the issues and broad collaborative innovation to democratize the tool for as many people as possible

That is needed long term, but I don't see how it does anything for the more immediate problems. If enough people are out of work, that's a crisis.

The right response, in my opinion, is to be honest about the risks and find ways of mitigating them. I don't see anyone of substance doing anything like that.

[fnordpiglet]

I’ll be honest and perhaps unkind. I do not know there’s anything to be done but lean into it and use the tool to help. Trying to fence it in and hope things never change because of it will be impossible and make things worse. By exploiting the tool and figuring out ways to make it an adjunct to human effort as quickly as possible is the only way forward. But disruptive things are disruptive particularly to those who resist it and put themselves against the change. Those who grab onto it and ride it will do well.

Large language models are most a threat to writers. But if you’ve used them enough you’ll realize it’s a tool shaped by the humans ability to write. Prompting to effect is not trivial, and the quality of the response is greatly informed not just by the intention but by the style of language and the quality of the words, the skillful manipulation of language that generates more language. These models have no agency or intellect, and their output is simply a likely continuation of the humans promoting. I imagine skilled writers can find they can do much more and better if they learn to master language tools, and they’ll still be the author and still be writing. People unskilled with language will be at an immense disadvantage using these tools.

However the delta will be much narrower, and people who are otherwise unable to convey themselves effectively but have great ideas will finally be heard. Those who are skilled at conveying themselves and manipulating through language but are poor in ideas will not be nearly as powerful. That will be a major realignment. And those who are in power now by virtue of their gift won’t give up ground to those who are elevated by the tool to take their place.

These are going to be painful changes for a lot of people. Pain is never good. But it’s too late to reverse, so those who adapt and learn will lead. And those who try to dig faster than the machine won’t.

[itake]

Technology advances have happened many many times in history. But there is always more work to be done.

I was reading Man’s Search For meaning, written shortly after ww2. The author notes that Americans have too much free time. Clearly that is not the case 80 years later.

[TimPC]

That was true for horses until the combustion engine came along and it certainly won't be true for humans forever. If we automate all useful work that can be done by someone at 100 IQ or lower than half of the population will be unemployed.

[itake]

No. I think that means people with low IQs will be able to do high IQ work.

[TimPC]

You’re not going to take someone who takes twelve hours to learn how to fold a letter for an envelope and teach them a demanding cognitive job like programming.

[the_only_law]

So then damn near everyone can do the job? What’s that gonna be worth then?

[woeirua]

In 5 years or less we might see a massive reduction in demand for human taxi drivers. What are taxi drivers going to do? These are typically not people who are well educated and capable of making a rapid shift into another field. And what do we tell them when they choose another field to work in, only to see that field be automated away too? At some point, won't we run out of carrots to dangle in front of the displaced?

[JohnFen]

> Technology advances have happened many many times in history. But there is always more work to be done.

Long term, yes. But it's also happened many times in history that sudden economic disruption has had a very serious cost. That things might be better in a couple of decades is of no help to people who can't eat or keep a roof over their heads today because of these changes.

[Pannoniae]

First they came for.....