Any personals here?
Credit to the original artist.This… Almost looks like the op of this post used AI to translate and change the art style of this comic.
AI hasn’t replaced Translators and the attempt to use them to replace artists and journalists isn’t going as well as you would assume. AI isn’t replacing any skilled position. Anyone who told you it will, is selling you something or dreadfully ignorant on the topic.
I have done professional translation, as a side gig. The usual workflow involves a first run through machine translation (Deepl is my favorite), then opening the machine translation in a translation program (I use CafeTran), which is used to make the second pass, by the human translator. This program doesn’t translate (they can use one of the main translation engines) but provides a bunch of tools to make the translation refining process easier.
Pure machine translation is a hack. AI can’t grasp nuances, contexts, etc… You will often see many words that may have several meanings, used incorrectly, for example.
I was a Sr Architect at a company that does this. No they do not use a level of machine translation first. In fact most of our contracts would have been violated if we did that at all. We implemented techniques to stop people from being able to.
If you don’t understand how translating movie is different than translating in court or a medical setting you’re top uneducated on the topic to have a valid opinion.
Correct. But it has made Translators more productive so we need fewer of them. But the productivity gains will create other jobs and so on. So it’s not as clear cut as people think. What will likely happen is that some jobs will vanish (anyone here remember elevator operators?) while some jobs will change and in other cases new professions will be created.
No it doesn’t. You guys are lying through your teeth. I designed systems for this. The software is completely forbidden. It sounds like you don’t understand the industry enough to have any opinion on the topic.
It’s true that it can’t replace a skilled profession. But I honestly believe you could replace most middle management with AI already. Of course the bar is incredibly low on that.
It can replace middle managers, but software and a spreadsheet could have done that 15 years ago. Middle management is there so the ruling class can redirect your anger to them. They’re scape goats.
I still think that all jobs are, in general, safe for the foreseeable future. But we will be expected to use AI tools and just produce more and more, so that a few people will gain more and more resources and power.
E.g. as engineers we will do less and less actual planning, but we will run AIs like it were a team of engineer slaves.
And I think this will be similar for other branches. A music composer will run AIs to compose parts of a song, adjust it, readjust other parts, till the song is good. I mean, afaik this is already how much of it works.
I believe that a few jobs will be hard hit. Things like first level phone customer support or service are probably going to be decimated, keeping humans for 2nd or 3rd level.
A similar thing happened with the irruption of the PC. In a few short years, the majority of professional typist jobs disappeared.
The rich will always have money to pay better people to make beautiful things for them
Just be useful to the rich and you’ll survive
Just like they planned it
I’d rather make them fertilizer
I just watched a movie (Geostorm) where these obviously super wealthy people were in a skyscraper and the movies like “oh no, they might die if no one stops this!”
Good? I’m more concerned about all the people below them getting swept away. These rich fucks should finally feel fear for fucking once.
Zero argument here
When I see these kinds of posts I just look over at the vibe coders and just laugh harder than any joke about ai taking our jobs
Except Vibe-Coders are kicking back & sipping margaritas & your job is still gone
Lol. Vibe coders aren’t taking anyone’s job. There have always been shitty engineers and now we just call them vibe coders.
Personal is a career?
The original meme this was copied from is Brazilian:
Probably a hallucination of the AI that generated this
I assumed it was supposed to be Personal Assistant, but the text got cut off.
How safe a profession is depends on how much more expensive replacing robots are than replacing people
I ve seen robot in exbibition failing just because of working all day, never forget maintainace also
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.
How drivers were on the edge?
Self driving cars have been threatened for years. Trucks are practically here (on private roads currently). The desire is strong.
Long haul freight truck yes. There are a few test convoys driving through Europe’s highways, with only a human driver in the first one. Trucks in smaller roads, or cities, are still quite a bit in the future.
Agreed. But the last mile driver will disappear eventually, particularly when hubs are designed for AI automation in mind.
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 😭
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)
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.
I mean given that “AI” are language models built on context and relations between words I’d argue that that’s one of the more applicable jobs compared to what’s listed in OP. With none of them is it capable of doing well, but I just wouldn’t argue that translation is outside that realm of what’s listed above
Oh man is translation not possible with AI.
i mean, it’s pretty good at it? A lot of human translators even struggle with the same problem, the AI is just a lot faster, and significantly more versatile. That’s arguably one of it’s strongest areas of performance, is translation, because it’s so well suited to it.
You shouldn’t talk confidently on topics you’re ignorant on.
You think it’s OK because it spits out grammatically correct language on your end, but if you spoke both languages you’d get how it fails. Look at translations of Korean comics if you’d like to see how badly mechanical translation is when it’s a connected story across multiple chapters, I was reading a comic where a character said he liked the elegant and sophisticated sound of calling a lightning strike skill ‘‘bolt’’ instead of whatever he was calling it ‘‘lighting strike’’ I think. It took me a while to realize what or whoever translated it didn’t know how to look at the context of the translation and find a English word that English speakers would find at least old fashioned if not archaic and of course longer or more poetic sounding. It’s like the whole thing when JRPGs can’t figure out if they should localize names by just spelling out the phonetic sounds in Roman letters or actually translating the meaning of the name, or a thing no one’s ever done and find a name in a European language family that has the same meaning.
Just like the AI art, it’s not replacing good translation, it’s replacing hack job translations, it’s replacing mediocre and predictable art. I really don’t care if someone uses AI in the pre-production or some post production functions, just not the part you need a human for, the actual creativity, there’s an adage in 3D animation ‘‘it you let the computer do it, it’s gonna suck.’’ You can let the computer do inbetweens, but you better be giving it nothing near a key frame. It has to really be the very least important frames.
AI currently completely does not understand the context of translation when it comes to visual media. Whereas a human translator can use that for additional interpretation
It’s still doing a consistently poorer job than a skilled translator, because it has no concept of nuance or tone. I encounter people getting themselves worked up over information in AI-translated news articles, so I go back to the source material and discover it’s mistranslated, under-translated, or just completely omitted parts of sentences. It’s very Purple Monkey Dishwasher.
The quality is better than it was a decade ago, sure, but that’s a pretty low bar. Back then it was gibberish, nowadays it’s natural-sounding phrases with incorrect translations.
this is true, but for the average person, who just wants to translate something to make it make somewhat sense, it’s great.
Though yeah, you can’t really trust it, there’s a lot of intricacies.
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.
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.
Man itl be nice when surgeons can be fully replaced with robots.
