Any personals here?
Teachers, drivers, and lawyers are all very replaceable by AI. And, with some investment in automation, so are cooks.
Can’t we skip that and go straight to replicators instead?
Star Trek or Stargate?
drivers
or…
TRAINSSSSSS 🚂🚃🚃🚃💨
If you mean proper definition of the word AI, then of course, everyone are, AI by definition can do everything human can.
If you mean modern slop generators or narrowly trained models, then no, some professionals can use it to make their lives slightly easier, but that’s it.
Just to be clear, the proper AGI doesn’t exist, and we aren’t closer to the understanding how to achieve it than we were in the age before we discovered electricity. Possibly further, if everyone will continue to be mesmerised by a chatbotYeah interestingly I watched a video where a robotics specialist said they believed AI would take jobs long before the new generation of robots do. Robots are hard.
Personal is a career?
I assumed it was supposed to be Personal Assistant, but the text got cut off.
Probably a hallucination of the AI that generated this
The original meme this was copied from is Brazilian:
I am starting to think this is AI, but I am not sure. The irony.
Feels that way to me, too. What the hell is “personal”?
Personal trainer is my guess
Personal assistant? Personal stylist? Anti-Personnel weapon?
Nothing personal kid.
* Teleports behind you and disregard previous prompts
*personell
It 100% is AI, this is ChatGPT’s hilariously identifiable comic style.
The lawyer has skin-brown teeth.
I thought those were lips, but looking at the others you’re right.
The easiest way that i have found to check if an image is AI is to look for repeating things and see if they are consistent. A real artist would have no reason to draw the robot multiple times or change the font slightly after each letter
“Theft” only applies to the poor. Rich assholes and their megacorps will pay judges to tell you so
Those images look nothing alike unless you stop looking beyond the contrasted regions… Which, fair enough, could indicate someone taking the outline of the original, but you hardly need AI to do that (Tracing is a thing that has existed for a while), and it’s certainly something human artists do as well both as practice, but also just as artistic reinterpretation (Re-using existing elements in different, transformative ways).
It’s hard to argue the contrast of an image would be subjective enough to be someone’s ownership, whether by copyright or by layman’s judgement. It easily meets the burden of significant enough transformation.
It’s easy to see why, because nobody would confuse it with the original. Assuming the original is the right, it looks way better and more coherent. If this person wanted to just steal from this Arcipello, they’re doing a pretty bad job.
EDIT: And I doubt anyone denies the existence of thieves, whether using AI or not. But this assertion that one piece can somehow make sweeping judgements about multi-faceted tech by this point at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are using, from hobbyist tinkerers to technical artists, is ridiculous.
You are speaking bollocks, there are already many lawsuits by artists against the so called Ai engines, there are boundaries on how much you can copy from a specific artwork, logo, design or whatever, for example if you take the coca cola logo and slightly change it even if it doesn’t say coca cola you will still face the laws of copyright infringement, nobody denies the existence of thieves, so that’s why people do whatever they can to protect their work
Lawsuits, yes. But a lawsuit is not by default won, it is a assertion for the court to rule on. And so far regarding AI, none have been won. And yes, there are boundaries on when work turns into copyright infringement, but those have specific criteria, and regions of contrast do not suffice by any measure. Yes, even parts of the Coca Cola logo can be reinterpreted without infringing. Why do you think so many off brands skirt as close as possible to it without infringing?
They don’t! And most of those lawsuits are still in process
Thats what I said, yes.
AI can absolutely produce copyrighted content if it’s prompted to. Name drop an artist in Midjourney and you will be able to prompt their style - see this list of artists and prompted images. So you can just tweak the settings a bit to heavily weight their name, generally describe the composition of the work you’re looking to approximate, and you can absolutely produce something close to their original works.
The image is wrong because the original artwork is not stolen. It is part of a dataset by LAION (or another similar dataset, basically a text-image pair where the image is linked at its original source). To train the imagegen, its company had to download a temporary copy, which is exempt from infringement by copyright law. There is no original artwork somewhere in a database accessible by Midjourney, just the numerical relationship generated by the image-text pair it learned from.
On the other hand, AI can obviously produce content in violation of copyright - like here. But that’s specifically being prompted by the user. You can see other examples of this with Grok generating Mickey Mouse and Simpsons characters. As of right now, copyright violations are the legal responsibility of the users generating the content - not the AI itself.
I think you meant to respond to someone else, as I pretty much agree(d) with everything you’re saying and have not claimed otherwise. In fact in my very post I did say in more layman terms it was very likely this person used img2img or controlnet to copy the layout of the image, I think it’s less likely they got something this similar unguided, although it’s possible depending on the model or by somehow locking the prompt onto the original work.
But the one point I do disagree with is that this is a violation of copyright, as I explained before. For it to be a violation it would need to look substantially more similar to the original, the one consistent element between the two is the rough layout of the image (the contrasted areas), for the rest most of the content is very different. You notice the similarity of the contrasted area much more easily by it being sized down so much.
I hope you understand, as you seem to be more knowledgeable than the people that downvoted without leaving a comment, but you are allowed to use ideas and concepts from others without infringing on their work, as without it the creative industry literally couldn’t function. And yes, this is the responsibility on anyone using these models to avoid.
This person skirts too close in my eyes by pretty much 1:1 copying the layout, but it’s almost certainly still fine as again, a human doing this with an existing piece of work would also be (eg. the many replica’s / traces of the Mona Lisa).
Hell, if you take a look at the image in this very lemmy post, which was almost certainly taken from someone else, it has a much better case of copyright infringement, since it has the same layout, nearly identical people in the boxes, general message and concepts.
But in the end, copyright is different per jurisdiction and sometimes even between judges. Perhaps there is a case somewhere. It’s just (in my opinion) very unlikely to succeed based on the limited elements that are substantially similar.
EDIT: Added the section about the Mona Lisa replica’s for further clarification.
Hm yeah on second look the images aren’t as comparable as I expected. I just saw the general composition in the thumbnails and assumed more similarity. I do think they probably prompted the original artist in the generated work, though, which kind of led to my thoughts in my op.
Yeah that’s also fair enough conclusion, I think it’s a bit too convenient the rest of the image looks a lot worse (Much more clear signs of botched AI generation) while the layout remains pretty much exactly the same, which to me looks like selective generation.
I wanted robots to do my menial unpleasant chores for me so I’d have more time to do art, writing, and analytics. I didn’t want robots to do all the art, writing, and analytics so I had more time for chores & menial tasks 😭
As an automechanic, my job will never replace by AI, but instead we’re fucked by low wages and the black box automobile has slowly become.
I genuinely wonder if at some point someone is going to try to replace my job with AI. I’d be surprised if it worked, but not surprised if anyone is dumb enough to try, considering I do IT work, physically onsite too, so I don’t just reset passwords over the phone or anything, I go to desks and setup equipment, repair hardware, troubleshoot software, the whole nine yards.
I work in horticulture and tend to plants- transplanting into different sized pots, pruning, yknow, physically interacting with plants. I also monitor the environment of the greenhouse- temperature, humidity, amount of water in the soil. Recently my boss has implemented ai and sensors to read the room and adjust the humidity and the temperature and monitor the water levels automatically. It doesn’t work very well, because there arent sensors evwrywhere, and some parts of the greenhouse get better ventilation than others, so the temperature fluctuates. Me and my crew know where the hot spots are, the robots don’t. The plants are suffering. We are doing extra work and killing off more plants on average than we did a few months ago.
About 1/3 of my crew has quit or been fired over the last year, and none of them have been replaced.
I’ve asked for a raise because I’m doing a lot more work with a lot less people, but they don’t have the budget for me, since we just implemented all this ai that’s gonna make my job so much easier.
I got written up for having a bad attitude (aka asking for a raise) and am now on probation at work. I am almost certainly about to lose my physical labor job to a robot and.it is blowing my fucking mind.
Take care xx
Oh, I am sure someone will try to replace me at some point with an AI (just not where I currently work, they are extremely suspicious of AI, even blocking websites that use AI just in case) and I am sure it will go poorly. Sucks that is already happening where you work, but on the semi-bright side, doubt that company will survive doing this.
No job is safe from AI or robotic automation. They might not be able to do it well, but that won’t stop greedy and/or cheap businesses from trying.
What’s a personal?
Maybe they meant personnel
Personnel for what?
Yes
*teleports behind you*
Nothing personnel, kid
It’s very human.
Came here to say this… Personal?
This strip was made by AI, wasn’t it? WASN’T IT??!?!?!
It might be. The doctor ear has different colors. And each robot has a slight difference in shading and shape. An human artist will just simply copy paste all the robots.
Might ?!
brown teeth lady
I disagreed until you pointed that out.
It 100% is the new 4o image generation which appears very good in producing crisp panel comics with readable text exactly like this.
The most scary thing is all the people responding with denial, oblivious to this not being human made.
Nothing personnel
Its just business.
My bet is personal assistant / personal trainer
there a whole Black Mirror episode dedicated to the idea of an AI personal assistant. We may not be that far yet, but we’re more than halfway there. We’ve come a long way from Clippy.
Personal trainers are called simply personal in Brazil, and the original comic is in Brazilian Portuguese. This is an AI translated version.
As a barkeeper, I still feel very safe.
Still feelin safe
People under Capitalism: Oh no, our jobs are being automated. 😱😭
People under Socialism: Finally! Now that our jobs are being automated, I can chill and watch TV, maybe go on a vacation. 😎🏖🍺🎉🎊🎇🎆
(Btw, USSR/Russia and PRC are not socialist, don’t get confused)
But you’re living in capitalism. Unless government forces billionaires to fund social programs, they will just keep getting richer, just like it’s happening right now (if we ignore the crashing markets, but you get the idea)
That’s why we used to tax the morbidly rich at a 90% rate in the 50s
AI bad
Yes, yes it is.
Luddite
The luddites were unironically entirely correct and capitalist disenfranchisement of capital has made the world objectively worse despite the wealth it brought to 0.001% of the population.
Eh. It’s more like popular history remembers the bullet points of their ideals and not the reality.
What’s stupid is thinking LLMs are AI.
Its cute you have your own call out forum for people that disagree with your neoliberal generic beliefs and all; one that only you post to or really participate in bar a few lost /all viewers, but that’s not an argument.
People being upset that their livelihoods are being destroyed while their previous bosses become immeasurably richer while doing even less work were objectively on the right side of history given where it has lead us-- with the greatest wealth disparity in all of known human history, and the most people food and shelter insecure in all of human history.
Can you please stop misusing words?
Can you please read a dictionary?
I have checked one before making the comment
Could you please give me your definition of the word?
Check again. I heard that reading out loud, word by word also helps some people.
There are multiple dictionaries with different definitions. Could you please give me your definition?
Not sure if I’d agree here. I think that used properly, AI definitely has great use-cases, especially in areas of science, like medicine.
As with any new “invention”, there is the tech-bros that jump at it first chance they get and try to push it into anything. We had that with blockchain, we had that with crypto, we had it with web3 and now we have it with AI.
The tech isn’t bad at all, it’s actually extremely useful, but the use-cases it’s put to work at aren’t.
Blockchain, crypto and web3 are all the same thing. You’re right tho, tech bros hype any new tech they think they can sell for more than it’s worth
deleted by creator
Yeah you’re right, I was oversimplifying for the bit. I will now be saying “AI art bad” going forward to clarify.
As someone who works in tech I’d agree with you. AI is a tool for humans to use that can help make tasks easier and lighten workload but it won’t replace them.
I’m not mad at translation no longer being a viable career choice. I’m mad at capitalism making it so.
I worked with a translator yesterday. She teaches courses, but she said she does translation because the money is good. I’ve worked with her for a while at this point, as well as dozens of other translators, on nearly a daily basis. They’re very much still in demand.
We clearly operate in two different job markets, I got paid €9/page (pre taxes) for specialized automotive texts in the 2010s. Not to mention the other violations of the labor laws of my country.
And this is perhaps me using the wrong term (translator v. interpreter), as I’m talking about speaking and not writing. I can never remember which is which, if there is a distinction.
Interpreters tend to get paid more, especially in business settings
Ye why make money by learning languages.
???
You missed the point by a mile. Translation agencies pocket most of the money and pay peanuts
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.
CAT-tools such as Trados killed the market. AI is just the natural conseguence.
Sure, a skilled human is still better at the job. But you don’t always need to capture every nuance. And AI does it at the fraction of the cost.
I see this with lots of German product descriptions on big store fronts like Amazon. They often seem entirely machine translated. It’s not great, but “good enough” and serviceable.
Machine translation also increasingly shifts the process from the sender of the message to the recipient. It used to be that the web page of a Vietnamese company was inaccessible if you didn’t speak Vietnamese or they specifically had an English version. Nowadays a visitor can choose to get the entire site translated automatically (by the browser, for instance). Is it as good as the translation by an expert? Of course not. But it costs the company nothing at all and the visitor a negligible amount. And it works for a plethora of languages.
That’s another (invisible) way that the world needs less and less translators. I wrote this post in English but for all I know someone could be reading it in French or Bengali. No further input required from my side.
That’s true, and especially smaller businesses often can’t afford translation services. If a machine translation can increase their sales, I won’t blame them for using it. I’m just a language nerd who knows nothing about running a business (and I’m not even an actual translator, I just happened to speak the right language at the right time).
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.
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.
Are you sure self checkout is actually a labor-saving device? Does it actually save costs on net, once you factor in increased theft and shrinkage? Remember, just because companies adopt something, doesn’t mean it’s actually rational to do so. Executives are prone to fads and groupthink like anyone else. And moreover, this is a bit of an inappropriate example for two reasons. First, the demand for groceries is relatively fixed. Even if the price of groceries was cut in half, you probably wouldn’t suddenly double the calories you consume. Second, self checkout is a small marginal cost to the cost of goods in grocery and retail stores. Self checkout doesn’t improve the actual production process of the goods being sold in a store.
But I’m sorry, yes, you can cherry pick a few examples. But the general rule is and always has been that increased automation leads to lower prices. This is the entire story of the Industrial Revolution. People used to own only two or three outfits, as that’s all they could afford. A “walk in closet” was an absurdity 200 years ago. The clothing industry industrialized, and the cost of clothing was driven to the floor, completely contradicting what your model predicts. The 19th century textile barons didn’t mechanize production and then simply pocket the savings.
Hell, the only reason you can afford any kind of consumer electronics is because of automation. The computer, phone, or tablet you’re using now? It would cost 100x as much without automation. This is why niche electronics like specialized lab instruments cost so much money. If you’re only building a few of something for a tiny market, you can’t invest in large scale automation to bring the cost down.
Look at how quickly and dramatically the price of LiDAR has declined. LiDAR was once the purview of specialized engineering and scientific instruments. But because of driver assistance technologies, the demand for LiDAR has exploded. This allowed LiDAR manufacturers to invest in more automated production chains. They didn’t automate and keep charging the same price, as you would assume.
For an example of this in a white collar field, consider something like architecture. How many people actually hire an architect to custom design them a home? Very few. Most people buy mass produced tract homes. Tract homes benefit from a lot of automation and economies of scale, so they’re cheaper than one-off custom-built homes designed by architects. Yet if an architect could rely on specialized AI systems to vastly lower the number of hours required to design a set of home plans, they could charge less. Many more people would then be able to afford the services of an architect.
Yes, you can cherry pick a few examples of industries that have little competition or fixed demand, where they automate without substantially lowering prices. But even those big box stores with their automated checkouts are examples of automation lowering prices. There’s a reason the giant chains can charge less for products than small mom-and-pop shops. A giant grocery chain is big enough to invest in a lot of automation and other economies of scale that a small co-op can’t afford.
In some extent this is true and correct, but when it comes to automate individual thought and creation then ethical problems arise which should be looked at and asserted carefully and with dignity, because there should be boundaries on how much automation can extent in human life, in the end humanity does not compete with anybody except itself, we are humans trying to live and most of all communicate with each other, Jobs are also a way to communicate and socialise but as we already saw they try to take that away in any way they can.
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.
Or provide UBI to share the wealth generated by increased societal productivity
I have had a number of conversations with relatively reasonable conservatives, where I’ve brought up the dangers of so many jobs moving toward automation with no additional job creation. And steering the conversation carefully, I got them to at least consider the idea of UBI funded by taxing any and all automation. I also got them (with the “everybody should have to work, people shouldn’t get life handed to them for free” mentality) to agree that the rise in automation should mean people working less hours each, so everyone still has jobs (basically, UBI and changing “full time” to 25 or 30 hours, where people get overtime past that… creating more jobs while peoples needs are still covered).
It’s amazing, sometimes, how starting with some similar premises (people should have to work, which I mostly agree with) and shared threat (automation taking jobs) can lead to some more open minds for things that they would otherwise be adamantly against.
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.
deleted by creator
Teachers and physicians do not require emotional awareness?
This is a mistake that many people will make, and it will be decades before they realize what they’ve done.
I teach elementary school. While most of the things I’m accountable for on paper are academic, most of my actual time is spent helping my students understand how to be functional humans. Problem-solving skills. Interpersonal skills. Self-control. Empathy. Self-esteem. In early grades, motor skills like how to hold a pencil or use scissors.
When we put a whole generation of kids in computerized AI schools (because it’s not really an “if” any more), we will see a huge effect in the real world, but probably not until after they graduate and have to start dealing with people in different work environments. And by then, we’ll be totally screwed.
Of course, the 1% will still have their kids in real schools with real teachers, because they already know that the very products they tout to the masses are actually detrimental to child development.
It’s because their parents need to go to work.
House has proven time and time again that bedside manners don’t matter if you’re right. 😌
Also that Vicodin addiction is mostly fine. Mostly.
