Small but important note -- even if you don't have a union, if you and your coworkers *collectively* take some form of action (e.g. a jointly signed letter to management expressing concern about poorly-implemented AI), that is still legally protected by labor law, so it would be illegal for your employer to engage in any kind of retaliation. It's called "concerted activity" if you wanna get technical about it, but the legal standard is basically "do something with at least one other person."
> "Who stands to profit, after all, from the rise of job-stealing software that costs
> a monthly fee to license?"
As well as being about as reliable as a Yugo's transmission. And who has to fix the problems? PEOPLE! And just as people need time off for vacations and illnesses, software "takes time off" when it's down. These idiots who want to fire everyone and just use software doesn't understand that.
I know someone whose company went all out a few years ago with getting all sorts of time-saving, money-saving software. They laid off 25% of their workers. Now they have more problems than they can count, are far behind, and are spending much more money (on software) to achieve the same results. Last December for the first time ever they could not pay out bonuses because all their money went to fixing the software that was going to save them all that money. And this is "reputable" software, from companies like Salesforce, Oracle and Google. At conferences they talk to others in their industry who tell the same story, so it's not just them. When I asked my friend why they did this when it was clearly a losing move, she replied, "Because everyone else [i.e., their competitors] is doing it." Brilliant. Reminds me of Apple's infamous "Lemmings" commercial. It angered people who saw it, but Apple told the truth, and everyone hated them for it.
I hate that all of this hype is being used to conceal the harms already occurring from AI. Lavender, Israel's AI, is being used in the genocide. Pedophiles are using it as is law enforcement. Yes, corporations are being threatening and short sighted with it but they've always operated that way. The investment groups who are merrily bankrupting companies, Red Lobster being the latest victim, are far more threatening to employment.
Can't we as a society walk and chew gum? Worker's jobs matter from AI, just as AI use for the military, or criminal and police AI activity, (you forgot the enormous environmental costs of AI and the undermining of democracy and news with AI) or whatever is happening with Red Lobster and investment companies.
We can tackle all of these aspects of AI at the same time along with other ills of society, I think. By the way, the Culinary Union in Las Vegas went on strike last year around the summer for AI workers protections. It was barely covered compared to the WGA and SAG strikes for AI worker protections that happened around the same time. Aren't Las Vegas restaurant workers under threat from AI as important as Red Lobster restaurant workers under threat from investment groups bankrupting companies? This isn't a victim competition. Businesses are part of the community. We need to start holding them accountable and demanding more from them. Whether that be AI and automation, or bankruptcies or whatever, they owe more as a member of society. I always find it sad when people say a variation of, "It has always been this way." And saying, "...corporations... being threatening and short sighted [is the way] they've always operated..." falls into that category. Well why can't it be different going forward? Apathy is the greatest tool of bad actors because it requires nothing from their end, it just requires lack of care from the public.
Ummm... All of this hype over AI wiping out jobs is COVERING up the very real harms from AI that HARDLY ANYONE is talking about because everyone is talking about this🤦♀️ Yes AI will cost jobs. But it's also being used in a GENOCIDE. Mass murder is a wee bit more horrific than people losing their jobs. Da fuq is wrong with you.
Okay... take it down a notch. Also Jon Steward's podcast was cancelled because he wanted to talk about job losses from AI. I immediately knew about Israel's Lavender program when you mentioned it because it was talked about in prominent media, including the Guardian. And let's not pretend AI is the reason for a potential genocide, AI is just one of the many methods the Israeli government is using to poorly conduct their war. If they didn't have AI, the civilian casualty rate would still be unacceptably high because the Israeli government is not particularly concerned about civilian deaths, just an unwavering delusion they can completely destroy Hamas.
This is a fantastic piece, Brian. I really appreciate the breadth and depth of your coverage on AI. Not a day goes by where I'm not conflicted in some way about it. I leverage AI in my professional and personal creative work because I see it as a powerful tool to extend the reach of what I can do, not as a replacement for the work. And yet, I'm reminded daily as I apply to new technology jobs and get no call backs, just how much AI has impacted the job market. I'm also aware of how generative AI will quickly average out everything that is produced leaving us with a sea of sameness. There seems to be no clear path forward that won't completely disrupt and even completely destroy old ways of working. We can't go back and no one has any true understanding of what going forward looks like. While your comparisons to the industrial revolution are helpful, I think we're looking at many-tentacled beast with AI that is advancing at a rate we can't fully comprehend across broad swaths of industry. We have to be vigilant, flexible, and informed. You're providing a great service with your reporting. Keep it up!
Great article. As an illustrator, I have to admit that AI image generation and its overall homogeneity of looks, bad anatomy, general failure in perspective and just about ever other dysfunction as art, drives me nuts when people start raving about its wonderfulness. It let's me immediately know these are people (and clients) who are as brainless as the pixels being pushed around by the algorithms. Human artists will survive this use of AI, but it will definitely cull those whose talents, or ability to market themselves, aren't great enough to stand above this sea of garbage being pumped to the idiot masses.
Reddit says Glaze/Nightshade don't work.... you can go to the Glaze website and learn more about how it works and also read published research papers on it. Glaze/Nightshade have been created by a team at the University of Chicago.
I'm not saying the Reddit is wrong, just I mean I'm not going to trust some reddit users in a Stable Diffusion group, where you can tell they have a bias to believe it doesn't work because they want to protect the integrity of their AI models. Read the comments and see that they are not impartial observers who have discovered Glaze/Nightshade doesn't work. They are primed to believe they can defeat the technology and that's why they tested it in the first place. Classic confirmation bias.
I say don't trust some random person on a Stabile Diffusion Reddit Chat. Try out Glaze/Nightshade and do research of articles on the technology yourself.
The insightful warning here is: GenAI doesn't need to be good to affect jobs, the people that have control over jobs simply need to *believe* it is good enough. Hmm, that is true. And also humanity might — we tend to do that — settle for 'cheap' (poor cheap cloth then, poor cheap data now). That sounds true too. Somewhat depressing, this. Because the predictions about how all jobs will disappear and we need universal basic income because of that is the story of brilliant AI. But AI isn't brilliant by far. It is 'cheap'.
There has always been hype about the replacement of jobs by technology - I’m on the fence about the impact of AI at the moment, but I can never understand why it would be in a company’s interest to replace all workers? If no one is working then what are the companies for? Who buys their goods or services? Household consumption is such an integral part of most economies - destroy this and what’s the point?
Quick run through Walmart today for a few essentials only to find one register open—only other option, self-checkout, manned by one worker furiously trying to keep tabs on all the different kiosks. I felt bad for her.
In comparison, had a visit to a walk-in center/doctors office. Those coming in for appts had a self-check-in kiosk, those of us coming in for the walk-in (or leaving appts and needing to schedule follow-up) had the benefit of 3 workers at desks, ready to help. I was grateful for them.
Nothing is worse that facing a kiosk or row of machines in an empty airport terminal, or needing a question answered but forced to cycle through an automated phone tree with no way to reach a human.
Why would Musk want everyone to lose their jobs? What kind of a wild would that be?
Areas where the stakes are low can be easily automated and humans will lose jobs. Where stakes are high, even if the grunt work is done by AI, it will still need human supervision ... and again where things are unfamiliar, and human insight is needed, humans will remain relevant. I think a lot of today's jobs will be automated, and there will be fewer humans who are working with the AIs for much greater inputs than today. On the flip side, AIs will enable humans to do other jobs, which may not exist today - the key is to remain agile and retrainable ....
I’m not sure comparing the anti-AI with Luddites holds water. Weren’t the Luddites protesting against tech advances that improved quality and performance vs what was previously available?
That’s not the case with AI art and writing which is clearly not an advance and not better quality than humans are producing. It’s worse. A step back. A decel in the development of the quality of art (to adopt some of the awful robotic language these ‘people’ use).
Not at all, the Luddites were protesting very much the same thing — the machinery did a much worse job, creating cheaper, lower quality products. The Luddites were protesting the bosses using those machines to squeeze workers with worse output, much like today. If you’re interested in the full story, have I got a book for you!
Very good article 🙂 Only part I disagree with is "While there’s unlikely to be mass job loss on a scale that would worry economists..."
The Dutch government is doing a study this year because they fear AI could potentially destroy their economy and cause mass unemployment. But my larger point, whether economists or governments are worried or not, I say we take tech companies and tech leaders like Elon Musk at their word, that they intend to replace everyone's job. Well if that turns to not pan out, the only consequences is we as a society will have rushed faster as a society to put in regulations that prioritize human labor, treat us as a vital respected partner in how a business runs. The truth is even before the concept of generative AI was a thing, I've been reading for decades that AI and automation is going to replace the vast majority of jobs by around 2050. I don't want to have this fight every couple of years with some new form of AI technology 😕 This fight alone to push for regulations is already very very stressful as an artist. Whether or not generative AI turns out to replace every job, AI and automation itself as a whole is a threat to human labor. We can future proof the importance of human labor going forward with regulations around generative AI.
I never hear this on the tech side. No one is telling tech companies to stop worrying about the future because they can't change it. Stop lobbying governments around the world to prevent or water down regulations. Stop spending money trying to get companies and government organization to adopt your tech. Don't waste money fighting lawsuits, just more worrying in a futile attempt to change the future... Just let the future happen, don't worry Tech companies."
Of course no one would say this because it's complete nonsense. We live in a society where everyone has the rights to shape the future, the public, governments and businesses. Telling workers they can't shape the future is telling them to concede their power to tech companies to shape the future. And many of us like a group I'm part of are not just worrying, we are talking to governments, filling lawsuits, helping create tools like Glaze and apps like Cara to protect our data, educating the public on the many effects of unregulated AI across society, working with unions to help them get AI worker protections. The US Congress would not have invited one of our members Karla Ortiz to speak in front of Congress about the dangers unregulated AI poses to her profession if Congress thought ordinary citizens did not have the power to shape the course of future events. The Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan would have not met with artists if she believed ordinary citizens did not have the power to shape the course of future events. There are many other examples from my friends trying to shape future events.
So if you don't want to shape future events, that's 100 percent fine. Not everyone has to be involved in every decision we have to make as a society going forward into the future. I spend my time on AI regulations. Others spend it on Climate change. Still others spend it on poverty. And so on. But you are clearly wrong that others don't have the power to shape the future. We all have that power if we so choose to use it :)
Last I checked, neither the US nor China has an AI model. American and Chinese companies have AI models. Thus the US and China governments are not competing. And the Chinese have more regulations around AI presumably because the Chinese communist party is not interested in their economy collapsing so they can beat the US at AI...
If you believe politicians are telling you they are in control and keeping you safe, then you are not doing your job as a citizen. A politician doesn't know how AI affects those in Hollywood, they don't know how AI is impacting hospitality, they don't know how AI affects accounting or translation industries. Because they are politicians, not actors, chefs, accountants, nor translators. They don't know everything and they welcome input from the public on their specific problems so legislation can be crafted well. I've talked with those in politics and they want to know what the public thinks on AI cause we may come at it from different perspectives they might not be aware of.
The future of AI will be written by those of us that interact with the government, communities, the public and advocate for the future they want. Open AI CEO Sam Altman has spoken in front of Congress to lay out his vision of AI. My friend Karla Ortiz has also spoken in front of Congress about the dangers of AI to her creative profession. The Altman and Ortiz have opposing views on AI, they both are working to make their voice heard. The future of AI will be written by market forces and geopolitical calculations? Well sure if you sit around and say that instead of getting in the game. You want control over guns, drugs, and tailgating? Get in the game and interact with the government. Stop expecting them to know everything and solve your problems and then get upset when they inevitably fail to do so on their own. And note, this doesn't happen over night, or the length of a Tiktok video. I've been advocating for AI regulations and AI worker protections for over a year. We have our first court case against tech companies finally proceeding to trial as of last week in California. It's a long hard fight, but it's called democracy, something a lot of Americans have forgot. You want change? Get in the game, and stop blaming capitalism, markets, or geopolitics!
Small but important note -- even if you don't have a union, if you and your coworkers *collectively* take some form of action (e.g. a jointly signed letter to management expressing concern about poorly-implemented AI), that is still legally protected by labor law, so it would be illegal for your employer to engage in any kind of retaliation. It's called "concerted activity" if you wanna get technical about it, but the legal standard is basically "do something with at least one other person."
Thanks JT — great point.
> "Who stands to profit, after all, from the rise of job-stealing software that costs
> a monthly fee to license?"
As well as being about as reliable as a Yugo's transmission. And who has to fix the problems? PEOPLE! And just as people need time off for vacations and illnesses, software "takes time off" when it's down. These idiots who want to fire everyone and just use software doesn't understand that.
I know someone whose company went all out a few years ago with getting all sorts of time-saving, money-saving software. They laid off 25% of their workers. Now they have more problems than they can count, are far behind, and are spending much more money (on software) to achieve the same results. Last December for the first time ever they could not pay out bonuses because all their money went to fixing the software that was going to save them all that money. And this is "reputable" software, from companies like Salesforce, Oracle and Google. At conferences they talk to others in their industry who tell the same story, so it's not just them. When I asked my friend why they did this when it was clearly a losing move, she replied, "Because everyone else [i.e., their competitors] is doing it." Brilliant. Reminds me of Apple's infamous "Lemmings" commercial. It angered people who saw it, but Apple told the truth, and everyone hated them for it.
I hate that all of this hype is being used to conceal the harms already occurring from AI. Lavender, Israel's AI, is being used in the genocide. Pedophiles are using it as is law enforcement. Yes, corporations are being threatening and short sighted with it but they've always operated that way. The investment groups who are merrily bankrupting companies, Red Lobster being the latest victim, are far more threatening to employment.
Can't we as a society walk and chew gum? Worker's jobs matter from AI, just as AI use for the military, or criminal and police AI activity, (you forgot the enormous environmental costs of AI and the undermining of democracy and news with AI) or whatever is happening with Red Lobster and investment companies.
We can tackle all of these aspects of AI at the same time along with other ills of society, I think. By the way, the Culinary Union in Las Vegas went on strike last year around the summer for AI workers protections. It was barely covered compared to the WGA and SAG strikes for AI worker protections that happened around the same time. Aren't Las Vegas restaurant workers under threat from AI as important as Red Lobster restaurant workers under threat from investment groups bankrupting companies? This isn't a victim competition. Businesses are part of the community. We need to start holding them accountable and demanding more from them. Whether that be AI and automation, or bankruptcies or whatever, they owe more as a member of society. I always find it sad when people say a variation of, "It has always been this way." And saying, "...corporations... being threatening and short sighted [is the way] they've always operated..." falls into that category. Well why can't it be different going forward? Apathy is the greatest tool of bad actors because it requires nothing from their end, it just requires lack of care from the public.
Ummm... All of this hype over AI wiping out jobs is COVERING up the very real harms from AI that HARDLY ANYONE is talking about because everyone is talking about this🤦♀️ Yes AI will cost jobs. But it's also being used in a GENOCIDE. Mass murder is a wee bit more horrific than people losing their jobs. Da fuq is wrong with you.
Okay... take it down a notch. Also Jon Steward's podcast was cancelled because he wanted to talk about job losses from AI. I immediately knew about Israel's Lavender program when you mentioned it because it was talked about in prominent media, including the Guardian. And let's not pretend AI is the reason for a potential genocide, AI is just one of the many methods the Israeli government is using to poorly conduct their war. If they didn't have AI, the civilian casualty rate would still be unacceptably high because the Israeli government is not particularly concerned about civilian deaths, just an unwavering delusion they can completely destroy Hamas.
This is a fantastic piece, Brian. I really appreciate the breadth and depth of your coverage on AI. Not a day goes by where I'm not conflicted in some way about it. I leverage AI in my professional and personal creative work because I see it as a powerful tool to extend the reach of what I can do, not as a replacement for the work. And yet, I'm reminded daily as I apply to new technology jobs and get no call backs, just how much AI has impacted the job market. I'm also aware of how generative AI will quickly average out everything that is produced leaving us with a sea of sameness. There seems to be no clear path forward that won't completely disrupt and even completely destroy old ways of working. We can't go back and no one has any true understanding of what going forward looks like. While your comparisons to the industrial revolution are helpful, I think we're looking at many-tentacled beast with AI that is advancing at a rate we can't fully comprehend across broad swaths of industry. We have to be vigilant, flexible, and informed. You're providing a great service with your reporting. Keep it up!
Great article. As an illustrator, I have to admit that AI image generation and its overall homogeneity of looks, bad anatomy, general failure in perspective and just about ever other dysfunction as art, drives me nuts when people start raving about its wonderfulness. It let's me immediately know these are people (and clients) who are as brainless as the pixels being pushed around by the algorithms. Human artists will survive this use of AI, but it will definitely cull those whose talents, or ability to market themselves, aren't great enough to stand above this sea of garbage being pumped to the idiot masses.
Speaking of hammers https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/what-is-glaze.html
Unfortunately, Glaze/Nightshade doesn't really work that well for protecting images, see here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/19ecsj7/ive_tested_the_nightshade_poison_here_are_the/
Reddit says Glaze/Nightshade don't work.... you can go to the Glaze website and learn more about how it works and also read published research papers on it. Glaze/Nightshade have been created by a team at the University of Chicago.
I'm not saying the Reddit is wrong, just I mean I'm not going to trust some reddit users in a Stable Diffusion group, where you can tell they have a bias to believe it doesn't work because they want to protect the integrity of their AI models. Read the comments and see that they are not impartial observers who have discovered Glaze/Nightshade doesn't work. They are primed to believe they can defeat the technology and that's why they tested it in the first place. Classic confirmation bias.
I say don't trust some random person on a Stabile Diffusion Reddit Chat. Try out Glaze/Nightshade and do research of articles on the technology yourself.
That's a shame. Still, steps in the right direction
The insightful warning here is: GenAI doesn't need to be good to affect jobs, the people that have control over jobs simply need to *believe* it is good enough. Hmm, that is true. And also humanity might — we tend to do that — settle for 'cheap' (poor cheap cloth then, poor cheap data now). That sounds true too. Somewhat depressing, this. Because the predictions about how all jobs will disappear and we need universal basic income because of that is the story of brilliant AI. But AI isn't brilliant by far. It is 'cheap'.
There has always been hype about the replacement of jobs by technology - I’m on the fence about the impact of AI at the moment, but I can never understand why it would be in a company’s interest to replace all workers? If no one is working then what are the companies for? Who buys their goods or services? Household consumption is such an integral part of most economies - destroy this and what’s the point?
Companies that advertise as "AI Free" will prosper perhaps?
Quick run through Walmart today for a few essentials only to find one register open—only other option, self-checkout, manned by one worker furiously trying to keep tabs on all the different kiosks. I felt bad for her.
In comparison, had a visit to a walk-in center/doctors office. Those coming in for appts had a self-check-in kiosk, those of us coming in for the walk-in (or leaving appts and needing to schedule follow-up) had the benefit of 3 workers at desks, ready to help. I was grateful for them.
Nothing is worse that facing a kiosk or row of machines in an empty airport terminal, or needing a question answered but forced to cycle through an automated phone tree with no way to reach a human.
Why would Musk want everyone to lose their jobs? What kind of a wild would that be?
Areas where the stakes are low can be easily automated and humans will lose jobs. Where stakes are high, even if the grunt work is done by AI, it will still need human supervision ... and again where things are unfamiliar, and human insight is needed, humans will remain relevant. I think a lot of today's jobs will be automated, and there will be fewer humans who are working with the AIs for much greater inputs than today. On the flip side, AIs will enable humans to do other jobs, which may not exist today - the key is to remain agile and retrainable ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ flattax on sales = ai/robottax ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://dailynewsfromaolf.substack.com/p/lifestyle-medicine-how-doctors-are
I’m not sure comparing the anti-AI with Luddites holds water. Weren’t the Luddites protesting against tech advances that improved quality and performance vs what was previously available?
That’s not the case with AI art and writing which is clearly not an advance and not better quality than humans are producing. It’s worse. A step back. A decel in the development of the quality of art (to adopt some of the awful robotic language these ‘people’ use).
Not at all, the Luddites were protesting very much the same thing — the machinery did a much worse job, creating cheaper, lower quality products. The Luddites were protesting the bosses using those machines to squeeze workers with worse output, much like today. If you’re interested in the full story, have I got a book for you!
Ah OK. Thank you. I sit corrected! Yes, please let me know the title of that book.
Very good article 🙂 Only part I disagree with is "While there’s unlikely to be mass job loss on a scale that would worry economists..."
The Dutch government is doing a study this year because they fear AI could potentially destroy their economy and cause mass unemployment. But my larger point, whether economists or governments are worried or not, I say we take tech companies and tech leaders like Elon Musk at their word, that they intend to replace everyone's job. Well if that turns to not pan out, the only consequences is we as a society will have rushed faster as a society to put in regulations that prioritize human labor, treat us as a vital respected partner in how a business runs. The truth is even before the concept of generative AI was a thing, I've been reading for decades that AI and automation is going to replace the vast majority of jobs by around 2050. I don't want to have this fight every couple of years with some new form of AI technology 😕 This fight alone to push for regulations is already very very stressful as an artist. Whether or not generative AI turns out to replace every job, AI and automation itself as a whole is a threat to human labor. We can future proof the importance of human labor going forward with regulations around generative AI.
Thank you.
I never hear this on the tech side. No one is telling tech companies to stop worrying about the future because they can't change it. Stop lobbying governments around the world to prevent or water down regulations. Stop spending money trying to get companies and government organization to adopt your tech. Don't waste money fighting lawsuits, just more worrying in a futile attempt to change the future... Just let the future happen, don't worry Tech companies."
Of course no one would say this because it's complete nonsense. We live in a society where everyone has the rights to shape the future, the public, governments and businesses. Telling workers they can't shape the future is telling them to concede their power to tech companies to shape the future. And many of us like a group I'm part of are not just worrying, we are talking to governments, filling lawsuits, helping create tools like Glaze and apps like Cara to protect our data, educating the public on the many effects of unregulated AI across society, working with unions to help them get AI worker protections. The US Congress would not have invited one of our members Karla Ortiz to speak in front of Congress about the dangers unregulated AI poses to her profession if Congress thought ordinary citizens did not have the power to shape the course of future events. The Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan would have not met with artists if she believed ordinary citizens did not have the power to shape the course of future events. There are many other examples from my friends trying to shape future events.
So if you don't want to shape future events, that's 100 percent fine. Not everyone has to be involved in every decision we have to make as a society going forward into the future. I spend my time on AI regulations. Others spend it on Climate change. Still others spend it on poverty. And so on. But you are clearly wrong that others don't have the power to shape the future. We all have that power if we so choose to use it :)
Last I checked, neither the US nor China has an AI model. American and Chinese companies have AI models. Thus the US and China governments are not competing. And the Chinese have more regulations around AI presumably because the Chinese communist party is not interested in their economy collapsing so they can beat the US at AI...
If you believe politicians are telling you they are in control and keeping you safe, then you are not doing your job as a citizen. A politician doesn't know how AI affects those in Hollywood, they don't know how AI is impacting hospitality, they don't know how AI affects accounting or translation industries. Because they are politicians, not actors, chefs, accountants, nor translators. They don't know everything and they welcome input from the public on their specific problems so legislation can be crafted well. I've talked with those in politics and they want to know what the public thinks on AI cause we may come at it from different perspectives they might not be aware of.
The future of AI will be written by those of us that interact with the government, communities, the public and advocate for the future they want. Open AI CEO Sam Altman has spoken in front of Congress to lay out his vision of AI. My friend Karla Ortiz has also spoken in front of Congress about the dangers of AI to her creative profession. The Altman and Ortiz have opposing views on AI, they both are working to make their voice heard. The future of AI will be written by market forces and geopolitical calculations? Well sure if you sit around and say that instead of getting in the game. You want control over guns, drugs, and tailgating? Get in the game and interact with the government. Stop expecting them to know everything and solve your problems and then get upset when they inevitably fail to do so on their own. And note, this doesn't happen over night, or the length of a Tiktok video. I've been advocating for AI regulations and AI worker protections for over a year. We have our first court case against tech companies finally proceeding to trial as of last week in California. It's a long hard fight, but it's called democracy, something a lot of Americans have forgot. You want change? Get in the game, and stop blaming capitalism, markets, or geopolitics!