505
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
505 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
69298 readers
3709 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They frame this article in such a weird way. Like replacing the models and their jobs was justified because they had egos etc...
I can see similar framing used to replace other workers because they want to be paid fairly or do something drastic like take bathroom breaks... :D
I mean...the moment any large corporation figures out a way to replace human workers that need things like bathroom breaks (and basic human rights, and paychecks) and do the same work with robots and AI... literally the next moment, they'll have the AI start generating layoff notices.
It's just less flashy when it happens that way because there's no need for that AI to look like a beautiful young person.
Why must we value how a person "contributes to society" via their output for capitalism?
Is studying philosophy useless? Is making art? Is reaping the benefits of a society built upon tens of thousands of years of human innovation to just sit back and relax a bit?
Humanity worked hard to get to a point where this is even a question. If you listen to the capitalists saying "If you're not working you're worthless" then you've been tricked. Tens of thousands of years of human innovation and suffering to advance society to a point where we don't all have to work, but the rich want you to think that's a bad thing. It is not natural that the benefits of all of that effort and suffering should all collect in the hands of a few at the top while everyone else suffers.
The "simple answer" is UBI because there literally is no alternative short of outright killing people that don't work to maintain automation. You and everyone else deserves a cut of that pie, we and all of our ancestors put blood, sweat, and tears into it. Let the people relax and enjoy the fruits of that society.
Well unfortunately that's the proposed solution too. When you ask an AI optimist what their solution is for workers after their jobs are replaced by ai, a common answer is a universal basic income. But if you believe it's unsustainable to pay a person to do a job that could be done by a robot (which for the record isn't really accurate, as we've been sustaining that), then it probably isn't sustainable to pay that same person for doing nothing...
So we're left with the same problem, what do we do about the workers?
Why is that unsustainable?
That person isn't going to spend their life doing "nothing," humans have an intrinsic need to do something. Psychology has shown us pretty conclusively. The difference is once we've automated so much, that can be whatever we want instead of focusing on the bare necessities to survive. The only way "paying someone to do nothing" is unsustainable is if you've bought into the lie that our value as human beings is inherently tied to what we produce for capitalism.
I actually don't agree that is is unsustainable, I was just pointing out the logical falicy. It's a weird thing to say that "paying a person to do a newly unnecessary job is unsustainable", especially in the context of AI. It doesn't make sense to complain about something when the only proposed solution is doing the exact same thing in a more roundabout way.
Also, something that has been done successfully for years doesn't suddenly become unsustainable just because new methods arise.
It was just a weird post.
But personally, I'm in favor of a UBI, I think it would likely work just fine and solve a plethora of problems that have been ignored in this country (USA) for too long.
As the other person was getting at its not a logical fallacy. One is having wasted potential ( workers doing jobs that should be automated away ) the other is capitalizing on that new found potential by giving them the means to survive maybe even thrive if we actually get UBI right. One is unsustainable as you are paying to keep appearances up for no positive benefit, the other frees a market of labor to do creative and inventive tasks that can further humanity and provide even more benefit.
I wonder if UBI is more unsustainable, or unsustainable at all - imagine a future where most things can be produced so efficiently without the involvement of humans that the idea of not doing so is simply preposterous, akin to insist on using horses after motorization became widely available. Employing humans might incur a higher lost opportunity cost than simply paying everybody to do "nothing". I'm using "" since all those people would of course do something, just not grind for bare survival or "the economy", which is arguably isn't necessary anymore, or at least not as necessary as it once was.
In a way, overcoming work (as in "unwanted compensated grind") is a way to truly live up to our potential as humans because it asks the very basic question of "how to be?" outside of what for millennia was basic necessity or narrowly defined by society.
I would say it is sustainable IF it's rolled out properly, if you are only just barely given enough to survive, your not going to take risks for creatiivities sake and end up going back to a grind of some sort to get that slightly more sustainable odds. The real big problem is how do we deal with the jobs that can't be automated? How does society react to after spending decades training in order to specialize in something so they can survive cope with others who can now thrive without it? Do we see massive unemployment from critical organizations/companies as workers decide to indulge in their passions on UBI instead of slave away for a sustainable living? Do we need to wait until all jobs can be automated before this is even possible, or does the society we have today collaspe? These are some of the actual difficulties with rolling out UBI and a proper solution has to address them for them to be sustainable. As it sits I don't know if we even are at a level to do much, most ai would be good for say being a CEO or high level executive looking at trends and creating a curve essentially to fit the data points those trends are creating. But how would people react to CEOs getting obsoleted and collecting UBI with their golden parachutes still? Probably pretty damn fucking badly, calling for UBI to be abolished or some shit and you wouldn't see much resistance as the share holders can eventually reap in the profits when we created precedent for no UBI related to jobs that AI/automation took over. So you need protections there first but our governments are reactive and not proactive. Sure maybe an authoritarian regime could enforce it but now you have to hope you have a benevolent dictator, which is pretty much an oxymoron, and they would need the foresight to leave democracy in there absence. Not to mention that force would need to be a global government or other economies still based on capitalism ideals without UBI are going to take advantage of their position leading to unsustainablity and eventual collaspe. We have a lot of fucking work a head of us but if you were to compare hunter gathers to today's societies and advancements it would almost seem impossible. I don't expect UBI or full on automation to make it into our societies without some sort of societal collaspe first that allows us to rebuild with the understandings of our current systems failures clearly documented. I think we are many generations off from that rebuilt society even if we bear witness to our societies collapse in the upcoming generations. But I agree it would signify a huge advancement in humanity and probably give us the foundations to truly become a type 1 civilization and set the stages for possible advancements to a type 2 civilization. But we are not there yet, unfortunately.
It sounds like you have other suggestions? Or at least objections to this one?
I could say the same about those who make blanket assertions, but then you could say the same back ... and then what.
Why do you feel this is different from the Industrial Revolution et al? They also made certain jobs redundant. People were either given different tasks or had to find different a new job. It was certainly not easy and I would certainly like things to go over smoother this time around, but in my mind, worst-case is that it will simply go over like in the Industrial Revolution.
I for sure 100% want you deciding what we do with the, "dumbasses out there that can’t handle more than a convenience store job”
They don't need a justification. It is just capitalism. The second it becomes profitable to develop and implement an AI to replace a human, it will be done. And half the country/world will be rooting for them saying "yeah, go capitalism!"
Capitalism created influencers in the first place. No, we don't need ordinary people living imaginary lives to create consumers who are being sold a lie.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I think that with these new kinds of stories, this sort of thing is super obvious because we haven't gotten used to it and because they haven't developed the more subtle vocabulary like officer involved shooting or how israelis are killed but Palestinians just die or how it's always the strikers threatening the economy and never the bosses or unfair working conditions.
I don't think anyone does this on purpose, mind you, but it's the system evolving to suit it's needs, as Chomsky pointed out.
Wait, what is wrong with this?
I mean the model is the backdrop, these fashion companies aren't selling models, there selling clothes.
If you were already going to use Photoshop and stock photos the fill out the background, put the model on a beach, adjust the time of day, put other people into the photo, add sone palm trees, etc. The model (and indeed the entire original photo) is now a very small part of this the final product. If you could now just photograph your clothing on posed mannequins and fill in ai generated faces, what's so wrong about that? Why does the person wearing the clothes your selling matter more than the the people added from stock photos?
Why use any human-like image then? A lot of amateur fashion designer on instagram use mannequins or busts. The models are serving a purpose. Removing them means someone loses a job.
If we look at this from top-down you're right because the company is saving a cost. But from the bottom-up, you've just become more expendable. This leads into the arguments others have been making, what happens when eventually people can't work? And why should we use technology to serve the few and not the many?
I read this story a few days ago, and it smacks of bullshit.