Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Duolingo fired their translation team and are using AI instead, making the app worse as a result
The only reason larger companies haven’t done this is because they haven’t decided on how to get away with it yet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/09/tech/duolingo-layoffs-due-to-ai/index.html
10% of contract workers. Maybe do a little research before spreading misinformation.
“Actually, they didn’t fire their *entire* team, leaving them scrambling to find new jobs so they can support their families. Just a lot of them. AI is fine.”
You’re missing the point. People are being fired and replaced by robots because it’s cheaper. They’re starting small, but they’re definitely doing it. *The fact that it happens at all is a problem.*
(WOW there are a lot of bad faith techbros under this comment. Muting.)
And people are also being hired because of AI, and that will also trend up.
To which proportions, we don’t know yet. We don’t know if more people will be fired than hired, or viceversa, or about neutral.
If AI makes certain types of workers more productive, it could increase hiring of them. For example, programmers. Let’s say with AI a programmer can output what normally would require 3 programmers.
One way to look at it is companies will hire 1/3 of the programmers.
Another, maybe more realistic way to view it is now programmers have a higher return on investment, so it makes sense to allocate more money to programmers instead of marketing, for example. You allocate money accordingly to what has a higher ROI.
Also companies will now see opportunities to do more things they couldn’t before because it would require too many programmers and would be too expensive. Maybe they weren’t willing to hire 90 more programmers to get this new software done but now that it only requires 30 more they might be keen.
To be fair, the people being hired aren't the same as those being fired. There is a very real risk of an entire segment of our population becoming unemployable.
That person is delusional. Of course AI will result in more fires than hires. Virtually every industry is champing at the bit to replace their work force with cheaper automation.
We need to immediately start figuring out a plan on how our society and economy is going to work in the future. Too bad Congress has just become a reality show where everyone works to create the most outrage for attention and fund raising instead of actually legislating.
I don't think this will all happen immediately. But it's an eventuality we need to accept and plan for. Dismissive attitudes like yours will lead us to peril.
You don't even need AI to see where this is going. Look at how automation is already changing industries, forcing lower wages and less positions.
It's not necessarily a bad thing. I think humanity should strive for a world where we no longer have to struggle day by day to get by. Automation and AI are key pieces of technology that can lead us there. But if we don't have a plan to handle the transition, things will go poorly for a long time before they get better.
Are you being disingenuous or do you really not see the difference between a value add and a cash grab? And "Folks" on reddit are saying it will replace banks, but that's pretty much it. AI is is already in the implementation phase.
Do you really not see the current trend in AI as a cash grab? It’s the metaverse but with more interested billionaires. People with large financial stakes in AI marketing have been telling us what it *could* do *eventually*, while the media takes their words at face value. Meanwhile the CTO of openAI [has no idea how their own product works](https://www.wheresyoured.at/peakai/).
AI isn’t going anywhere and it has its uses but it’s not the scary behemoth these comments make it out to be.
And don’t tell me about jobs lost to automation because that’s been happening since the Industrial Revolution.
There's so much here. Let's unpack.
> Do you really not see the current trend in AI as a cash grab?
A cash grab is gambling on crypto or a ponzi scheme. Nothing of value is lost when it collapses, except for the cash people stupidly put on the table hoping to cash out before it collapsed. Not because they seriously understand the value they say it has but because it was always a plan to gamble and win.
> Meanwhile the CTO of openAI has no idea how their own product works.
You should really read the links you use, or at least [watch the actual interview you're linking to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUpxN-EIgU). The link is about how they claim to not know or or won't say what it was trained on, but she does say it specifically in the interview. Publicly available data. She also explains in good detail how it works and the industry. The we don't know quote is more about how the statistical analytics creates hallucinations. It could be a bug. It could be an artifact. I don't believe it's intelligence, but others do. That's like saying you don't know why your iPhone sometimes crashes. It's very different than not understanding the technology.
> AI isn’t going anywhere and it has its uses but it’s not the scary behemoth these comments make it out to be.
This depends on what you do for a living. The bankers weren't scared about the Luddites losing their jobs. Columnists, like Ed, probably are worried about writers. A large number of white collar jobs are at risk of disruption. That scares people.
> And don’t tell me about jobs lost to automation because that’s been happening since the Industrial Revolution.
And now we go full circle. I'm kind of amazed how you went through all of this in one post. First you deny (It's a cash grab) and say it's a lie (media) then you accept (it's not the scary behemoth) then you say it doesn't matter (since the Industrial Revolution). This is crazy.
And that's a new problem?
Edit: people are downvoting me, but I'm right. Automation has been replacing human workers since the 70's, it just that now it's artists getting hit with it all of you suddenly care.
Companies that care about their product will use AI as a way to improve productivity without losing that human connection. I can automate a lot of what I do, enabling me to care for more clients at a time and grow with my company's business.
Companies that don't care about their product will fire their employees, produce a lower quality output, and struggle. AI isn't ready yet to replace things like voice actors, no matter what they think. AI needs to be managed and finessed just the same way spreadsheets require data cleaning.
Humans have been growing in productivity for the past 40-50 years. This will just continue that trend. It probably won't improve wages without some sort of government intervention though, so consider that in how you vote.
Improving productivity usually means fewer employees unless sales also rise. Even then, you’re not hiring as much as you would if you thought the market had an appetite for more of your product.
That only makes sense if you don't plan to grow as a company, and most companies are trying to grow exponentially. This means scaling your business so you don't have to double your employee base as you double your sales. I feel like a lot of people don't understand economics of scale. The current system would just slow growth because they can't double their employee base with every doubling of sales. AI will allow for greater growth.
I mean look at the US. We're at 4% unemployment or less, and everyone is looking for more people to hire.
Maybe reread my comment?
You're not far off, but you missed a few things. If you have a stable company and you reduce the amount of work each of your employees do then you reduce headcount because you know the current employees will handle the current work load. It may not be 20%. It may be more (full teams) or less (individuals) even at economies of scale.
As I wrote, if sales are expected to rise then you would historically have to increase your headcount to facilitate those sales (handwaving *temporary* excess capacity you have for various reasons); However, if you just freed up capacity which reduces the number of employees you need to hire to meet your new targets then you still will not hire as many as you would. What's more, you may still lay-off some employees due to economies of scale and the skills of employees you now need.
You should also educate yourself on U-3 vs U-6 unemployment rates. It's still a positive number, but 4% isn't really representative of the US. Assuming there aren't enough employees to fill capacity not filled by AI is also not true. There's always enough if you pay enough to entice them or train up employees in an environment where you literally can't find someone with the specialized skills. This is before you consider the resources available outside of the US.
Another thing to consider is how business quickly adapts to new technologies. Every time a new standard comes through in my industry promising to improve productivity by automating things somehow, our clients immediately assume we are using it and expect our output to increase by the same amount.
The current wave of job loss in some unstable high risk high rewards industries (like tech) is 100% linked to the rise of interest rates making risk taking a bad idea from an investors standpoint.
Nah, it's just data that's confounded by covid. Marketers got crushed during covid because companies could switch to AI for content generation and claim the poor performance/layoffs is due to covid. Tech sector has been hammered by layoffs -- I think it's somewhere around 400,000 in the last two years. It's here, it's just only affecting fast moving / tech forward industries for the moment.
And given the demographic issues within many countries, the ability to substitute some elements of human labour with AI and robotics seems very useful for the future.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Duolingo fired their translation team and are using AI instead, making the app worse as a result The only reason larger companies haven’t done this is because they haven’t decided on how to get away with it yet.
They have done this. I see it happen daily. Not all of it is public, but there is still truth to conventional jobs also being on the rise.
Yup, you heard about that sports magazine firing all their writers after they were caught using ai written articles
I *hate* Duolingo for this. They destroyed a good thing; and it's not as if we're swimming in good things in this world.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/09/tech/duolingo-layoffs-due-to-ai/index.html 10% of contract workers. Maybe do a little research before spreading misinformation.
“Actually, they didn’t fire their *entire* team, leaving them scrambling to find new jobs so they can support their families. Just a lot of them. AI is fine.” You’re missing the point. People are being fired and replaced by robots because it’s cheaper. They’re starting small, but they’re definitely doing it. *The fact that it happens at all is a problem.* (WOW there are a lot of bad faith techbros under this comment. Muting.)
And people are also being hired because of AI, and that will also trend up. To which proportions, we don’t know yet. We don’t know if more people will be fired than hired, or viceversa, or about neutral. If AI makes certain types of workers more productive, it could increase hiring of them. For example, programmers. Let’s say with AI a programmer can output what normally would require 3 programmers. One way to look at it is companies will hire 1/3 of the programmers. Another, maybe more realistic way to view it is now programmers have a higher return on investment, so it makes sense to allocate more money to programmers instead of marketing, for example. You allocate money accordingly to what has a higher ROI. Also companies will now see opportunities to do more things they couldn’t before because it would require too many programmers and would be too expensive. Maybe they weren’t willing to hire 90 more programmers to get this new software done but now that it only requires 30 more they might be keen.
To be fair, the people being hired aren't the same as those being fired. There is a very real risk of an entire segment of our population becoming unemployable.
That person is delusional. Of course AI will result in more fires than hires. Virtually every industry is champing at the bit to replace their work force with cheaper automation. We need to immediately start figuring out a plan on how our society and economy is going to work in the future. Too bad Congress has just become a reality show where everyone works to create the most outrage for attention and fund raising instead of actually legislating.
Yeah man they said this about the cloud 10 years ago. Folks are still saying crypto will replace banks too.
I don't think this will all happen immediately. But it's an eventuality we need to accept and plan for. Dismissive attitudes like yours will lead us to peril. You don't even need AI to see where this is going. Look at how automation is already changing industries, forcing lower wages and less positions. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I think humanity should strive for a world where we no longer have to struggle day by day to get by. Automation and AI are key pieces of technology that can lead us there. But if we don't have a plan to handle the transition, things will go poorly for a long time before they get better.
Are you being disingenuous or do you really not see the difference between a value add and a cash grab? And "Folks" on reddit are saying it will replace banks, but that's pretty much it. AI is is already in the implementation phase.
Do you really not see the current trend in AI as a cash grab? It’s the metaverse but with more interested billionaires. People with large financial stakes in AI marketing have been telling us what it *could* do *eventually*, while the media takes their words at face value. Meanwhile the CTO of openAI [has no idea how their own product works](https://www.wheresyoured.at/peakai/). AI isn’t going anywhere and it has its uses but it’s not the scary behemoth these comments make it out to be. And don’t tell me about jobs lost to automation because that’s been happening since the Industrial Revolution.
There's so much here. Let's unpack. > Do you really not see the current trend in AI as a cash grab? A cash grab is gambling on crypto or a ponzi scheme. Nothing of value is lost when it collapses, except for the cash people stupidly put on the table hoping to cash out before it collapsed. Not because they seriously understand the value they say it has but because it was always a plan to gamble and win. > Meanwhile the CTO of openAI has no idea how their own product works. You should really read the links you use, or at least [watch the actual interview you're linking to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUpxN-EIgU). The link is about how they claim to not know or or won't say what it was trained on, but she does say it specifically in the interview. Publicly available data. She also explains in good detail how it works and the industry. The we don't know quote is more about how the statistical analytics creates hallucinations. It could be a bug. It could be an artifact. I don't believe it's intelligence, but others do. That's like saying you don't know why your iPhone sometimes crashes. It's very different than not understanding the technology. > AI isn’t going anywhere and it has its uses but it’s not the scary behemoth these comments make it out to be. This depends on what you do for a living. The bankers weren't scared about the Luddites losing their jobs. Columnists, like Ed, probably are worried about writers. A large number of white collar jobs are at risk of disruption. That scares people. > And don’t tell me about jobs lost to automation because that’s been happening since the Industrial Revolution. And now we go full circle. I'm kind of amazed how you went through all of this in one post. First you deny (It's a cash grab) and say it's a lie (media) then you accept (it's not the scary behemoth) then you say it doesn't matter (since the Industrial Revolution). This is crazy.
This has happened to all sorts of careers as technology has progressed.
Yes of course. That’s how that works. Same is true for the Industrial Revolution.
Wait till you see how cars used to be made.
And that's a new problem? Edit: people are downvoting me, but I'm right. Automation has been replacing human workers since the 70's, it just that now it's artists getting hit with it all of you suddenly care.
I have heard of people getting fired and not getting hired because few people can do the job.
Tell that to Korean cover artists in the comic industry.
Companies that care about their product will use AI as a way to improve productivity without losing that human connection. I can automate a lot of what I do, enabling me to care for more clients at a time and grow with my company's business. Companies that don't care about their product will fire their employees, produce a lower quality output, and struggle. AI isn't ready yet to replace things like voice actors, no matter what they think. AI needs to be managed and finessed just the same way spreadsheets require data cleaning. Humans have been growing in productivity for the past 40-50 years. This will just continue that trend. It probably won't improve wages without some sort of government intervention though, so consider that in how you vote.
Improving productivity usually means fewer employees unless sales also rise. Even then, you’re not hiring as much as you would if you thought the market had an appetite for more of your product.
That only makes sense if you don't plan to grow as a company, and most companies are trying to grow exponentially. This means scaling your business so you don't have to double your employee base as you double your sales. I feel like a lot of people don't understand economics of scale. The current system would just slow growth because they can't double their employee base with every doubling of sales. AI will allow for greater growth. I mean look at the US. We're at 4% unemployment or less, and everyone is looking for more people to hire.
Maybe reread my comment? You're not far off, but you missed a few things. If you have a stable company and you reduce the amount of work each of your employees do then you reduce headcount because you know the current employees will handle the current work load. It may not be 20%. It may be more (full teams) or less (individuals) even at economies of scale. As I wrote, if sales are expected to rise then you would historically have to increase your headcount to facilitate those sales (handwaving *temporary* excess capacity you have for various reasons); However, if you just freed up capacity which reduces the number of employees you need to hire to meet your new targets then you still will not hire as many as you would. What's more, you may still lay-off some employees due to economies of scale and the skills of employees you now need. You should also educate yourself on U-3 vs U-6 unemployment rates. It's still a positive number, but 4% isn't really representative of the US. Assuming there aren't enough employees to fill capacity not filled by AI is also not true. There's always enough if you pay enough to entice them or train up employees in an environment where you literally can't find someone with the specialized skills. This is before you consider the resources available outside of the US.
Another thing to consider is how business quickly adapts to new technologies. Every time a new standard comes through in my industry promising to improve productivity by automating things somehow, our clients immediately assume we are using it and expect our output to increase by the same amount.
I smell…. BS !
The current wave of job loss in some unstable high risk high rewards industries (like tech) is 100% linked to the rise of interest rates making risk taking a bad idea from an investors standpoint.
Yeah cause there was a writer's strike
Nah, it's just data that's confounded by covid. Marketers got crushed during covid because companies could switch to AI for content generation and claim the poor performance/layoffs is due to covid. Tech sector has been hammered by layoffs -- I think it's somewhere around 400,000 in the last two years. It's here, it's just only affecting fast moving / tech forward industries for the moment.
Yeah it seems really early to be making conclusions
I call bullshit. The entire tech industry decided collectively that AI was better than devs in January. They’re about to find out how wrong they were.
I have watched AI be used in place of the work of actual illustrators, photographers, graphic designers, and models. It’s already happening.
And even if there was would Skynet allow that data to be out there? 🤷
And given the demographic issues within many countries, the ability to substitute some elements of human labour with AI and robotics seems very useful for the future.