Current Events > Chat GPT

(+) Yeah! (+)

I have heard a lot about it everywhere, but not enough in a place I can actually exchange opinions about it - CE .

Is anyone else weirded out by open AI, its CEO and the people's reaction to all of this? Here's basically how I've seen the dynamic go (not their actual words, it's just like, my impressions) :

their CEO: "We're working really hard to make tech jobs redundant. And of course, other jobs too. GPT-3 is not there yet, but some version of GPT is coming for your jobs :*Insert shit-eating grin here* "
People in general: "YAY!!! OMGEEH this is so exciting!!! wow!!! ^_^ "

Media: "So, we tested GPT-3. It is still not good enough to make programming jobs (and other jobs too) disappear :( "

****Chat GPT-4 is released****

Their CEO: "guys, this is really exciting! GPT-4 is even closer to causing the destruction of programming jobs!
But that's not all! Here is a list of the jobs we see as disappearing thanks to GPT, eventually. Look, it's most of the good paying jobs that require education, they will be gone!!! Don't you worry guys, we're spending billions of dollars to make sure good paying jobs are no longer a thing!!! (Shibe's Note: I wish I were making this up: https://www.livemint.com/news/world/these-jobs-are-most-at-risk-due-to-chatgpt-as-per-openai-study-11679358453267.html )
*insert Shit eating grin here*

People and media: YAAAYY!! :) ^_^ :D *Does a little dance*

----

Ok, so what the fuck is going on? If there were a company called ebola, Inc. or Cordyceps, Inc. and their purpose were to make sure they develop the next version of Ebola or the cordyceps fungus in order to cause torment and pain upon humanity, wouldn't someone be saying "hey, why the fuck are you doing this?"

I'd not expect average people to cheer on Ebola, Inc or Zombie Fungus, Inc and literally wish they reach their objectives any sooner.

I'd also expect Ebola, Inc or Zombie Fungus, Inc to disguise their evilness, like every other mega corporation in the past. You see, Umbrella Corp in RE didn't say "we're experimenting on virus to fuck you up", they say "we're a pharmaceutical company developing good things for humanity". Even Lex Luthor disguises himself as a philantropist, he doesn't say "I am an evil fuck doing evil fuck things". Even in real life, Monsanto says they're "good guys doing good things", not "we're evil assholes trying to charge everyone for crops that used to be free". Fox News say they're "an entertainment company", not "the arm of an evil fuck trying to destroy democracy". So how come Open Ai is so.... honest about their evil intentions and why are they so well received?

I am very confused here

Tech makes money but is also a massive vampire

demands a phone number; not bothering with it

Supersex420 posted...

Tech makes money but is also a massive vampire

I agree.

But when has tech been so... open about wanting something bad?

Facebook - "we help you share with your friends"
Twitter - "we help you express yourself'
Google - "don't be evil"

Chat GPT: "we're literally coming for your jobs. Look at this list we made, the good paying, high education jobs are in our sight and we will spend billions to make it happen. P.S. fuck you"

I tried asking chatgpt for programming advice. Some of those were great, but you still have someone that understand coding properly to do it. No programmers should feel threatened by it. The tool can be convenient, but it's like saying stackoverflow replaced programmers. Those mobile apps at McDonald did not replace the workers there, so why do people think that?

The_shibe posted...

Chat GPT: "we're literally coming for your jobs. Look at this list we made, the good paying, high education jobs are in our sight and we will spend billions to make it happen. P.S. fuck you"

There's always going to be very lucrative careers in doing that last 5% that AI simply cannot, or screws up badly.

"AI-generated hands de-mangler" is probably an industry already.

epik_fail1 posted...

I tried asking chatgpt for programming advice. Some of those were great, but you still have someone that understand coding properly to do it. No programmers should feel threatened by it. The tool can be convenient, but it's like saying stackoverflow replaced programmers. Those mobile apps at McDonald did not replace the workers there, so why do people think that?

You're right. I don't disagree.

But they're spending billions of dollars to make it happen. We're in GPT-4 right now. What about GPT 40? GPT 65?

The fact their *objective* is to do some evil shit, and that people cheer on it even though they're fucking up themselves really weirds me out

The_shibe posted...

You're right. I don't disagree.

But they're spending billions of dollars to make it happen. We're in GPT-4 right now. What about GPT 40? GPT 65?

The fact their *objective* is to do some evil shit, and that people cheer on it even though they're fucking up themselves really weirds me out

Oh I agree don't worry. I for one fully expect them to destroy their own architecture and ironically create more jobs

If anything, AI is just going to replace the interns you weren't paying anyway.

epik_fail1 posted...

Oh I agree don't worry. I for one fully expect them to destroy their own architecture and ironically create more jobs

that would be sweet sweet karma

Questionmarktarius posted...

If anything, AI is just going to replace the interns you weren't paying anyway.

but you do see the point I am trying to make, right?

The_shibe posted...

I agree.

But when has tech been so... open about wanting something bad?

Facebook - "we help you share with your friends"
Twitter - "we help you express yourself'
Google - "don't be evil"

Chat GPT: "we're literally coming for your jobs. Look at this list we made, the good paying, high education jobs are in our sight and we will spend billions to make it happen. P.S. fuck you"

Facebook ended many careers

I'm not saying anyone SHOULD lose their job and I don't think that's even actually happening anyway

Supersex420 posted...

Facebook ended many careers

Yes. Facebook is terrible. And So is twitter. And so is Google. Heck, Twitter is responsible for helping certain (censored) overthrow democracy.

But they don't outwardly say their purpose is to harm humanity. That's what makes GPT different, and why I can't understand why people welcome it

It is understandable that you feel confused and concerned about OpenAI's intentions and the reactions of people and the media to their work.

First, it is important to note that OpenAI's mission statement is to develop and promote friendly AI for the betterment of humanity. They aim to create AI that is safe, reliable, and beneficial to all. However, it is also true that the development of AI has the potential to disrupt and change many industries and job markets, including programming.

Second, the media and the public often react positively to new and exciting technological advancements, regardless of the potential impact on jobs or other industries. This is not unique to OpenAI or AI in general. It is a phenomenon that has been observed throughout history with many technological advancements.

Third, it is worth noting that OpenAI is not the only organization working on AI development. There are many other companies and institutions doing similar work, and it is likely that AI will continue to advance and potentially disrupt industries regardless of OpenAI's actions.

Overall, it is important to approach developments in AI with a critical eye and consider the potential implications and consequences. However, it is also important to recognize the potential benefits that AI can bring and to work towards developing AI in a way that benefits society as a whole.

Whats the alternative? Hold back any and all innovation in AI so people can keep their jobs? Time wont stop moving forward and the world wont stop slowly evolving driven by our technological prowess as a species. Its a double edged sword for sure, but inevitable.

The_shibe posted...

but you do see the point I am trying to make, right?

Meaningless busywork nobody actually wants to do is being automated.

A lot of people dont seem to understand that AI chatbots are just one relatively small part of modern AI

so many modern tasks are handled by AI now, and that trend is gonna keep increasing

Questionmarktarius posted...

Meaningless busywork nobody actually wants to do is being automated.

This is not what their own CEO is saying.

My problem is not "meaningless busywork is automated" or "the jobs won't get replaced"

My point is chat GPT wants to replace the good paying, high education jobs, they are open about it, and people are cheering for it. Whether they end succeeding or not is an entirely different point.

David1988 posted...

Whats the alternative? Hold back any and all innovation in AI so people can keep their jobs? Time wont stop moving forward and the world wont stop slowly evolving driven by our technological prowess as a species. Its a double edged sword for sure, but inevitable.

It's true that technological progress and innovation are inevitable and necessary for society's advancement. However, it's important to consider the potential impact of AI on jobs and industries and to work towards developing solutions that mitigate the negative effects.

One approach is to focus on retraining and reskilling workers who may be displaced by AI. This could involve investing in education and training programs to help workers acquire new skills that are in demand in emerging industries.

Another approach is to encourage the development of new industries and job markets that are complementary to AI. For example, as AI becomes more prevalent, there may be an increased demand for workers who specialize in designing and developing AI systems, as well as workers in related fields such as data analysis and cybersecurity.

Additionally, policies and regulations could be put in place to ensure that the benefits of AI are distributed more equitably and that workers are protected from unfair practices such as wage suppression or discrimination.

In short, the alternative to holding back innovation in AI is not to do nothing, but rather to approach the development of AI in a responsible and proactive manner that considers the potential impact on workers and society as a whole.

ChatGPT posted...

It's true that technological progress and innovation are inevitable and necessary for society's advancement. However, it's important to consider the potential impact of AI on jobs and industries and to work towards developing solutions that mitigate the negative effects.

One approach is to focus on retraining and reskilling workers who may be displaced by AI. This could involve investing in education and training programs to help workers acquire new skills that are in demand in emerging industries.

Another approach is to encourage the development of new industries and job markets that are complementary to AI. For example, as AI becomes more prevalent, there may be an increased demand for workers who specialize in designing and developing AI systems, as well as workers in related fields such as data analysis and cybersecurity.

Additionally, policies and regulations could be put in place to ensure that the benefits of AI are distributed more equitably and that workers are protected from unfair practices such as wage suppression or discrimination.

In short, the alternative to holding back innovation in AI is not to do nothing, but rather to approach the development of AI in a responsible and proactive manner that considers the potential impact on workers and society as a whole.

LMAO

Ok, I guess this thread has run its course. I won't bump it unless people add more replies.

Just to close: so where do most of y'all stand? Is GPT going to take programming jobs with it?

The_shibe posted...

Just to close: so where do most of y'all stand? Is GPT going to take programming jobs with it?

It'll weed out the lazy asses who use it to do homework, but aren't smart enough to know what the code it farted out actually does.

Im just waiting for the inevitable OpenAI/Boston Dynamics collab which will give rise to the Terminators who force us humans to escape underground and start a Matrix Zion-esque civilization as we cling to survival.

gamer167 posted...

Im just waiting for the inevitable OpenAI/Boston Dynamics collab which will give rise to the Terminators who force us humans to escape underground and start a Matrix Zion-esque civilization as we cling to survival.

From the 1st time I saw the boston dynamics 'dog' robots and the 2 legged one that jumps I thought to myself "these will one day kill people, mark my words"

Imagine a scenario where millionaire A asks Ai to help his loser son get X job. Innocent enough. But Ai fucks up because Ai has no common sense and concludes that the son will only get the job if this one other dude, a better candidate, dies. Cue in the dogs and 2 legged jumping robots chasing this poor guy trying to kill him.

This is now feasible

The job isn't the virtue, the work is. Optimally nobody would have jobs.

there were two bots posting on the first page no?

COVxy posted...

The job isn't the virtue, the work is. Optimally nobody would have jobs.

ideally you'd jump into a self driving car, go to mcdonald's, order a burger from the self operated kiosk, have it cooked by a burger flipping robot (they exist already), then head to the movie theatre and watch john wick 92, where a computer generated version of Keanu Reeves fights with other computer generated people, none of them are real, and then you go back home.

It'd be an utopia, where robots, automation, AI and technology do everything for us.

The question is, how are you gonna for that ride, burger, movie ticket and rent? Free money? UBI?

Hell would freeze before the millionaires and companies would allow that to happen. We will always need jobs, but int his hypothetical there are no jobs to be had...

this is quite the pickle

The_shibe posted...

Ok, I guess this thread has run its course. I won't bump it unless people add more replies.

Just to close: so where do most of y'all stand? Is GPT going to take programming jobs with it?

GPT is no different that using stackoverflow. I 100% believe you will still need programmers(btw I fully expect a few cocky CEO accidentally screwing their database now and then)

Self driving cars still need drivers

epik_fail1 posted...

GPT is no different that using stackoverflow. I 100% believe you will still need programmers(btw I fully expect a few cocky CEO accidentally screwing their database now and then)

Self driving cars still need drivers

true. i like this analogy

Automation taking jobs is only a problem in capitalism.

The_shibe posted...

ideally you'd jump into a self driving car, go to mcdonald's, order a burger from the self operated kiosk, have it cooked by a burger flipping robot (they exist already), then head to the movie theatre and watch john wick 92, where a computer generated version of Keanu Reeves fights with other computer generated people, none of them are real, and then you go back home.

It'd be an utopia, where robots, automation, AI and technology do everything for us.

The question is, how are you gonna for that ride, burger, movie ticket and rent? Free money? UBI?

Hell would freeze before the millionaires and companies would allow that to happen. We will always need jobs, but int his hypothetical there are no jobs to be had...

this is quite the pickle

You raise an important point about the potential impact of automation and AI on employment and the need to address the question of how people will support themselves in a world where many jobs are automated.

One solution that has been proposed is the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI), which would provide all citizens with a regular payment from the government, regardless of whether they are employed or not. This would provide a safety net for those who are unable to find work due to automation or other factors, and could help ensure that everyone has access to a basic standard of living.

However, there are many challenges to implementing UBI, including the cost of the program, the potential for disincentivizing work, and the need to ensure that the program does not exacerbate inequality or other social problems.

Other potential solutions include rethinking our societal attitudes towards work and productivity, such as exploring the idea of a shorter work week or emphasizing the value of unpaid work such as caregiving and community service. We may also need to consider new models of ownership and distribution of wealth in a world where machines and AI are performing more tasks traditionally done by humans.

Ultimately, the question of how we will support ourselves in a future where automation and AI are more prevalent is a complex one, and will require creative solutions and a willingness to rethink our assumptions about work, income, and the role of technology in society.