Thanks to @deeply_moving_queef@lemmy.ml for finding the original author:
Drivers were on the edge for a long time. Lawyers are on the edge for the past 2-3 years. Cooks are probably the closest ones to be on the edge too.
I'm not mad at translation no longer being a viable career choice. I'm mad at capitalism making it so.
Maybe I'm not super up to date on AI stuff, but I worked as a translator for a year, and AI (they used ChatGPT and DeepL) still made a bunch of mistakes that you'll immediately notice when you speak the language. It feels like their training input had a bunch of older, Google-translated articles in them that were just bad. Maybe an AI trained specifically for translation with curated learning material and a "teacher" who corrects mistakes can get closer to replacing human translators, but it'd still miss the cultural context of certain words and phrases that are in a translator's passive vocabulary, at least in less widely spread languages.
That being said, it's definitely harder to make a career out of translating because companies who don't know any better just use AI instead. As long as they get their point across (and make money), they don't care about the finer details.
Amusingly, cook is probably the safest of those positions for the time being. The physicality and necessity of presence makes it harder to automate. Lawyer, doctor, and teacher can be done remotely, and is based largely on knowledge, so they are prime targets. People are already trying it. Drivers you could see being done remotely if we had faster, more ubiquitous, net connections, so it's doable as well. It's basically already happening. But cooking... AI doesn't seem like it would give you the right kind of inputs and outputs to do that any easier/faster/cheaper. It's already possible to make a food vending machine. The limitations of vending machines aren't really that they need an easier interface on their database. AI won't really help there. And to go beyond that and try to make an AI powered restaurant probably wouldn't be profitable. It's barely profitable to run a regular restaurant most of the time. If you try to put in the probable millions to automate a restaurant, it'd probably go the same way as the self-checkout lanes at stores, which is to say poorly.
Actually have all of the jobs I would think the safest are doctors and lawyers. When your life and liberty are on the line you really don't want an emotionless machine you want a human.
Years ago I had to have surgery on my neck to remove a benign tumor, and I absolutely wasn't worried, I was definitely worried it would hurt but I wasn't worried it would go wrong and I'd end up getting a major artery cut, because I trusted the person doing it, because they came and talked to me. I wouldn't absolutely not trust a robot to do surgery, even if logically the robot would probably be better than the human.
Technically speaking it's opposite than in the picture. The professions replaced by robots in the picture are in fact not replacable because they require emotional awareness. On the other hand professions in the picture that represent humans can be replaced by robots because they only require data.
AI generated slop. Reported
Why is this AI comic upvoted as much?? There are mysteries I will never get..
I am starting to think this is AI, but I am not sure. The irony.
Everyone thinks their own line of work is safe because everyone knows the nuances of their own job. But the thing that gets you is that the easier a job gets the fewer people are needed and the more replaceable they are. You might not be able to make a robot cashier, but with the scan and go mobile app you only need an employee to wave a scanner (to check that some random items in your cart are included in the barcode on your receipt) and the time per customer to do that is fast enough that you only need one person, and since anyone can wave a scanner you don’t have much leverage to negotiate a raise.
And that's a good thing, if and only if you provide pathways to other jobs or phase workers out slowly i.e. by retirement.
This is the lump of labor fallacy. The error you are making is assuming that there is a fixed quantity of work that needs to be performed. When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices. This enables more people to afford those services. There's a reason people don't own just 2 or 3 sets of clothes anymore.
When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices.
I'm sorry, but that's some hilarious Ayn Rand thinking. Prices didn't go down in grocery stores that added self-checkout, they just made more profit. Companies these days are perfectly comfortable keeping the price the same (or raising them) and just cutting their overhead.
Don't get me wrong, if there are things they could get more profit by selling more, then they likely would. But I think those items are few and far between. Everything else they just make more money with less workers.
Oh man is translation not possible with AI. You have no idea how little languages have in common. A lot of terms don't mean a thing, but combine concepts you don't have or associate to point at a thing.
My dad said, about learning a new language, ''cat means cat, not gato, don't translate'' and I think that holds up pretty well from my experience.
Translators are never going to be replaced. The quality of a translation made by humans is much better
So does journalist, because their job isn't only writing article but to go out there to find stories to write, even on the frontline of war. It's the slob tabloid and "based on source by another press" article getting replaced.
Artist though, their income is gonna get cut because ai plagiarism mean they're getting less and less commission.
If we were not ruled by tech oligarchs, and the control & benefits of AI were not concentrated among a privileged few, AI replacing our jobs would be a good thing.
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links