What's ur take?
Will AI take 50% of the jobs in next decade?

Lot of people are getting paid for doing utter bullshit or striking conflicts, so I would be very happy if all the buzzfeeders and wallstreetjournal for example get the foot and get replaced by some AI that actually can produce some content thats not just shit out and trying to spark conflict for relevancy.

no

@calmyourtities ur on a no strike?

@illusion466 centuries even! People have been afraid there will be few jobs left for humans ever since the industrial revolution.

The above photo says everything.

I watched a Vox video on that!

They've done the math. Earlier this decade, machines took over most farming jobs. But the jobs didn't decrease, the exact opposite happened! Just watch the video!

@Mitiko it really depends (some jobs after getting replaced, do actually spawn new ones, like developing and maintenance - but still are only a fraction of the old amount) - some jobs are thousands and thousands of manual workers, which can be replaced down to 10%, thats basically what happened in the amazon warehouses long time ago iirc.

@BambuSource no

To everyone drawing analogies, you have to dive a little deeper.

If you look at every single job scare ever, there's something similar, people are afraid of losing unskilled labor to something, but really that automation provides opportunity for people to grow into more skilled positions.

The difference with AI is eventually there'll be no where to grow, unless you're religious, you recognize that AI will grow to be as intelligent as us. Eventually vastly surpassing us.

Once an AI is better at everything, no one will hire a person, because a person has nothing to give.

And that means no jobs.

People have to adapt. Like in Darwin theory. If people can't adapt to changing reality that's their problem. Jobs are changing quite fast these days. Some of them never existed and were created in the last few years. Some of them doesn't exist anymore. AI won't change much in that trend. But people are lazy - learned something once and want to do that for the rest of their life. And someday they will be crying that AI (or automation) took their job. But it'll be all their fault because they didn't learn (or didn't want to learn) how to adapt in 21st century.

I hope that their kids will be smarter.

No, not this decade.
No, people are very fond of ethics.
No, there will be different jobs.

I'm with @JoshBent
Please SkyNet, take down the non skilled workers of the press!

Quit with the "ermagawd ai will take our jobs and fuck our families" bullshit, none of that will happen.

AI was designed from the begining to assist us in areas computers excel at

Someone has to maintain those machines.

Also the machines lack one big thing - the imagination.

@athlon machines will be able to maintain themselves, much like how humans maintain themselves now.

We do genetic engineering, hygiene, plastic surgery, etc.

The only difference is they'll be vastly more intelligent and capable of maintaining themselves.

@Nevoic but they can’t imagine! Yes, they can use algorithms to create new poem, or music but most of the time they will be similar to already existing things.

@athlon why not? Think about why we imagine (rationally, if you're religious I ask you to suspend your spiritual thinking for a moment), our brain is composed of neurons that fire due to input/stimuli, that's the entirety of our thought process. We don't consciously make decisions, decisions are made and then we become aware of them, we have tests that prove this.

We can replicate that in computers. There's nothing innate to organic material that induces thought, it's all the structure. We can copy the structure and get the exact same level of sophistication.

I know if you're religious you probably don't believe they have a soul, but rationally speaking we have no evidence that a soul exists, or that a soul would have anything to do with thought.

We know the brain and it's structure influences thought. We see diseases that destroy the brain destroy the people we love, there's a direct causal relationship there.

@Nevoic I’m not religious... at all

But still - to accomplish the same processing power of brain, you need something better than i7-8700K

@athlon cool =) so feel free to just disregard the religious parts, I just come across that excuse a lot.

@Nevoic But still - the power. Current consumer grade PCs cannot handle so much power

@athlon oh yes, definitely. But if we continue having breakthroughs to continue Moore's law (like figuring out how to use quantum computing for classical non parallelizable tasks) then we will have the power to simulate a human brain.

We know it's at least possible to stuff the amount of information and processing a human brain does inside of something the size of a human brain =)

I'm not claiming that we could develop human level AI right now though. We can't. We need more horse power.

@athlon this is meant as a theoretical discussion of what's possible, not what a kid can craft up on his gaming PC xD I definitely agree with you on the "we can't do it right now" front.

@Nevoic But the Moore's law has slowed down dramatically. We cannot use smaller tech process, because of silicon. And it doesn't seem it's gonna change any time in at least next 5 years or more.
And the consumer grade part is really important, because no one would build a machine that could possibly interact with hundreds of humans every day which costs more than 50.000 $ per machine. If we want human-like machine which you can also see, then all the components need to be stored in this machine.

Of course, we can also create the same thing over the Internet. But remember what happened to Tay Bot by Microsoft? It went crazy because of people.

@athlon I don't think Moore's law will continue like it has, I think it requires innovation, but innovation seems to come pretty consistently.

This is a complete guess, but when Moore's law finally slows down for people not to care about upgrade cycles (people won't blow $1000 on a 10% GPU upgrade) then someone will innovate or the market will die, and I think someone will innovate.

My guess is quantum computers, but it could be vertically stacking chips (processor cube?) And shrinking the vertical die size of a centimeter to millimeters to nanometers like we have horizontally, providing many orders of magnitude in classical performance without having to even innovate past silicone, which I think we will.

Also the claim that nobody would build a $50,000 PC is bogus IMO. A human costs anywhere from $20,000 to $500,000 a year to rent for work, one time purchase for $50,000 for eventually the same thing? Companies will jump on it.

I know a $50,000 computer right now wouldn't match a human. But it will eventually. And then 5 years after that that $50,000 computer will be $1,000.

@Nevoic Yes, but imagine how much energy would it need. And in many countries the energy costs gets more and more expensive.

About the upgrade part - I own Dell Latitude E6320 - the laptop from 2011 and personally, I don't feel the need for upgrade. The only thing I changed was replacing HDD with SSD.

I use Dell Precision T1700 with GTX 1050 Ti and Intel i5-4670 from 2013 and it's more than enough for me - I can play the games on max settings, code, edit videos...

My brother uses Dell Precision T3500 with Intel Xeon W3530 from 2010 and except for the fact that it generates more heat it performs as fast as my T1700. The only difference is that Xeon was worth 300$ in 2010, and i5 was worth 213 USD in 2013.

@athlon yeah Intel hasn't been innovating. Nvidia has. Compare the GPUs.

I'll assume he has the best possible preconfigured GPU in the T3500, the GT 610. Your GTX 1050 has around 16 times the performance.

I could be wrong about the specific card, I spent literally 23 seconds googling it without even going to a page xD but I think you get my point.

@Nevoic I actually have 1050 Ti in both PCs. The only difference is that mine has double fans, and in T3500 is a single fan model. Before that there was Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT inside of it...