Automation and technology has been replacing jobs for well over a century, almost always to better outcomes for society. If it were an ethical issue, then it would be unethical not to do it.
In any case, which jobs have been replaced by LLMs? Most of the actual ones I know were BS jobs to begin with - jobs I wish had not existed to begin with. The rest of the ones are where CEOs are simply using AI as an excuse to execute layoffs (i.e. the work isn't actually being done by an LLM).
BeetleB says "The rest of the ones are where CEOs are simply using AI as an excuse to execute layoffs (i.e. the work isn't actually being done by an LLM)."
So lay people off to reduce costs, say that they have been replaced by AI now, and the stockholders love you even more!
Indeed, a model that should cascade thru American businesses quickly.
Your definition what is an ethical issue is reductive. It means the issue involves ethics, and they are obviously involved. Even if ultimately society at large would benefit from the disappearance of certain jobs, that can still create suffering for hundreds of thousands of people.
So suppose someone wants to say provide localized versions of their software and avails themselves of translation software. Are we supposing that such ought not exist to provide for the livelihood of the translator who would otherwise have been paid?
If so where do we stop. Do we stop at knowledge work or do we go back to shovels and ban heavy equipment or shall we go all the way back to labor intensive farming methods?
>Egos here sometimes are quite a thing to see. Maybe its good that chops are coming also for this privileged groups, a bit of humility never hurts.
This doesn't appear to be so. AI is discussed as a pretext for layoffs more fashion than function.
But I am willing to grant you that. From a big picture society perspective, if it means that ordinary people like me who cannot afford to pay an artist can now create art sufficiently good for my needs, then this is a net win. I just made an AI song a week ago that got mildly popular, and just got a request to use it at a conference. No one is losing their job because of me. I wouldn't have had the money to pay an artist to create it, and nor would the conference organizers. Yet, society is clearly benefiting.
The same goes for translators (I'm not actually aware that they're losing jobs in a significant way, but I'll accept the premise). Even before LLMs, the fact that I could use Babelfish to translate was fantastic - LLMs are merely an incremental improvement over it.
To me, arguing we shouldn't have AI translators is not really different from arguing we shouldn't have Babelfish/Google Translate. Likely 99% of the people who will benefit from it couldn't afford a professional translator.
(I have, BTW, used a professional translator to get some document translated - his work isn't going away, because organizations need a certified translator).
> People at various bureaucratic positions doing more menial white collar work?
"Menial white collar work" sounds like a good thing to eliminate. Do you want to go back to the days where word processors were not a thing and you had to pay someone to type things up?
> People had/have decent livehoods from those, I know a few. If they could easily got better jobs they would go for them.
I'll admit I spoke somewhat insensitively - yes, even I know people who had good careers with some of them, but again: Look to the past and think of how many technologies have replaced people, and do you wish those technologies did not replace people?
Do you want to deal with switchboard operators every time you make a call?
Do you want to have to deal with a stock broker every time you want to buy/sell?
Do you want to pay a professional every time you want to print a simple thing?
Do you want to go back to snail mail?
Do you want to do all your shopping in person or via a physical catalog?
The list goes on. All of these involved replacing jobs where people earned honest money.
Everything I've listed above has been a bigger disruption than LLMs (so far - things may change in a few years).
> Egos here sometimes are quite a thing to see. Maybe its good that chops are coming also for this privileged groups, a bit of humility never hurts.
Actually, I would expect the SW industry to be amongst the most impacted, given a recent report showing which industries actually use LLMs the most (I think usage was SW was greater than all other industries combined).
As both an engineer and a programmer, who makes a living via programming, I am not opposed to LLMs, even if my job is at risk. And no, I'm not sitting on a pile of $$$ that I can retire on any time soon.
> Most of the actual ones I know were BS jobs to begin with
I cannot edit my original comment, so I'll address this here:
Yes, I admit some legitimate jobs may have been lost (and if not yet, likely will be). When I spoke of BS jobs, I was referring to things like people being paid to ghostwrite rich college students' essays. That's really the only significant market I know to have been impacted. And good riddance.
Yeah, the issue is that there is no common benefit if the private company is the only one doing the replacement. Are we ready for AGI before we solve issues of capitalism? Otherwise, the society may get a harsh reset.
There's actually a lot of common benefit. That company can now supply their goods and services in greater quantity and at lower cost, which raises consumers' standard of living. Meanwhile the workers who were previously employed in menial clerical tasks will simply switch to supervising the AI's that perform those same tasks for them.
> Meanwhile the workers who were previously employed in menial clerical tasks will simply switch to supervising the AI's that perform those same tasks for them.
I don't think this will happen. It does not work with the capitalism if we have only few companies which have all this power. And many consumers don't have jobs left so the value of money increases faster than the "cost" decreases.
> Meanwhile the workers who were previously employed in menial clerical tasks will simply switch to supervising the AI's that perform those same tasks for them.
Put this to numbers, right now - if we remove all workers and leave managers on those fields - how many people are still employed?
You're so wrapped up in defending the job replacement aspect that you miss the point on hypocrisy.
I would like to make one small point about job replacement, the better outcomes for society are arguably inconclusive at this point. You've been indoctrinated to think that all progress and disruption is good because of capitalism.
We're still in the post-industrialization arc of history and we're on a course of overconsumption and ecological destruction.
Yes, we've seen QoL improvements over the course of recent generations. Do you really think it's sustainable?
How is it hypocrisy when OpenAI is clearly acknowledging in their blog post that AI is going to disrupt jobs?
When a factory decides to shut down, and the company offers to pay for 2 years of vocational training for any employee that wants it, is it hypocrisy? One of my physical therapists, who took such an offer, definitely doesn't see it that way. The entity responsible for her losing her job actually ended up setting up a whole new career for her.
> I would like to make one small point about job replacement, the better outcomes for society are arguably inconclusive at this point. You've been indoctrinated to think that all progress and disruption is good because of capitalism.
That's overstating my stance. I can accept that it's too early to say whether LLMs have been a net positive (or will be a net positive), but my inclination is strongly in that direction. For me, it definitely has been a net positive. Because of health issues, LLMs allow me to do things I simply couldn't do before.
> Yes, we've seen QoL improvements over the course of recent generations. Do you really think it's sustainable?
This is an age old question and nothing new with LLMs. We've been arguing it since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (and for some, since the dawn of farming). What I do know is that it resulted in a lot of great things for society (e.g. medicine), and I don't have much faith that we would have achieved them otherwise.
Automation and technology has been replacing jobs for well over a century, almost always to better outcomes for society. If it were an ethical issue, then it would be unethical not to do it.
In any case, which jobs have been replaced by LLMs? Most of the actual ones I know were BS jobs to begin with - jobs I wish had not existed to begin with. The rest of the ones are where CEOs are simply using AI as an excuse to execute layoffs (i.e. the work isn't actually being done by an LLM).