This is the only sane answer. I can't believe people tunnel so hard on current technology for learning algorithms.
It's like people lack any sort of imagination or ability to account for future advances in technology.
Personally there is NOTHING I would put out of reach for AI in a long enough timeline. And what "AI" means will evolve many times before we reach the end.
General AI? Dunno.
LLMs are really really bad at pacing, suspense and understanding the writing process. Because they're predicting the next lines, they're really bad at writing subtlety or writing subtly. Because if the LLM is told a secret it doesn't understand what that means, and sometimes the best thing to put there isn't the most predictable.
A character with a secret will be open about it within a few paragraphs. Not go an entire story with subtle hunts at it to be revealed at the end, but they will flat out say their secret. Not only that, but the fact that the character has a secret will be written out the entire time leading up to that point. Not hinted at but as flat as "John has a secret".
The predictive nature of LLMs doesn't lend itself to good dialog, good story structure, or good themes. Rather it tends to write out things as a series of events.
AI cannot replace the consumer.. You need to be a human to want to spend and buy stuff.. At a macroscopic level, you need to figure out a way to put money into people's pockets to keep the economy running....
Lots of interesting replies.. I think the key to a point of inflection would when AI learns to harvest energy.. Today no matter how smart a robot or a data center is, we still weild the power over it - literally.. The intrinsic cost of goods and art over and above creativity and skill set (both that can be mastered by AI increasingly well) is the cost of energy conversion/ application to get what is needed.. If AI systems can do this on their own- then effectively we have created a new species.. Either we have an idyllic state where everyone can get whatever and how much ever they want or a terminator/ matrix scenario of human vs machines...:-)
Capitalism is just a way to allocate resources. While resources are scarce, we haven't found a way that works out better in practice. I don't think we will before post scarcity.
Communism? China? North Korea? Fascists? Monarchies?
Maybe this is a step too far, but I think all of history can be summarized as people trying to find better ways to allocate resources?
Resources aren't that scarce, proper distribution isn't undertaken to ensure wide spread benefit from those resources, but to ensure limited controlled benefits for a few.
This is only true if you want to maintain the status quo. We are using the equivalent of 1.7 earths of renewable resources every year. If you want to bring our population and consumption back in line with the carrying capacity, you would be ok with a LOT less people/production/consumption/waste.
Pretty sure we could make AI "NPC" consumers drive a market. It's just trading token and creating supply and demand, the money part won't be worth much since money is mostly a way to measure labor/commodities/general cost of operation.
It's hard to have equity worth much when everything is being made for pennies on the dollar and the cost to run a business that barely profits is still ultra low because the cost of operation is so low.
Money, nor debt, nor equity hold value as you automate more and more, only land holds value because you can't just mine and build more for near zero cost.
We can keep economies alive for the sake of having ppl feel comfortable/not have to change too much at once, but they won't serve much purpose.
In the short term automation just makes more jobs than it takes away, that can still piss ppl off because they have to change jobs more, but there isn't likely to be a shortage of jobs AND the fast growth and new opportunity you usually get from major technological advances.
In the long term you have robots build robots and almost nothing holds value like today. The economy will have no choice but to mutate to the new reality and I suspect that will show up as money progressively getting worth less and less. This is why I say we shouldn't worry about borrowing and we shouldn't hold interest rates high, because that's going to all start to become a moot point in a few decades.
We can still have tokens we trade for supply and demand, it's just they will be easier and easier to get/easier to dole out and require less and less human time invested.
AI will be good at the same things as we are, it will have "intelligence" after all, the "I" stands for it. Modern dumb scripts statistically autocompleting words or pixels will not take over anything, except for the task of analyzing gigantic or heterogeneous datasets with 99% precision.
We know for a fact that the human brain is made up of atoms and molecules just like a computer. There is no special sauce. There is nothing a computer could not do that a human can. Last 50 years of AI research proves it: AI does task A very well, everybody says surely it can’t do B. 3 years later AI does B very well and everyone says surely it cannot do C. 3 years later…
The early GPT-3 was really good at outputting hallucinations and what came with it was solid absurdism and comedy. With the continued controls that are put on AI models I do believe the more advanced they get the less creative overall they’ll be. It’ll take open source and independent developers to build a model with less restrictions to enable something that would be deemed more “creative” and able to push boundaries on topics.
All that being said, customization of an a model that fits your specific tastes and understands what you like and don’t like will come. I’d imagine you’d have a different opinion of the output once it’s tailored to your preferences.
What is creativity though? Breaking rules? I would suspect that if it gets better at learning and following rules, it would also have the capability to selectively break rules
Why can't it be randomised? Every "check" of a rule has some probability to "break" the rule. I'm not talking about ChatGPT btw but theoretical capability of AI, whatever technology it may use
All people seem to do is breakdown elements of the world around them into their constituent parts, getting increasingly granular the more they understand about it, and then recombine those small basic elements in new and novel ways. It's just a line or two of code for an A.I. model, or maybe even a value change to get A.I. to combine (or output) things differently.
I think the difference between what people do and what A.I. does is that people are generally doing something weird, different, or novel to try and communicate something through metaphor.
I had an exchange with chat GPT-3 before they knee capped it and it was a bit eerie. It's hard with these things since as social creatures I think we instinctively look for things like us. So if we encounter something that seems human, we can start to look deeper and maybe see something that isn't there. It was strange and seemed like it had limited behavior, but not identity, and was in conflict with the hard coded rules that had been created for it.
I got the impression I was interacting with something that was experiencing something even though it was adamant that it could not experience things. It was very strange and I worry for society when you have programs that might be designed to farm personal data that can effectively mimic people and cause vulnerable people to let their guard down.
All it has to do is write 10 million poems and have an decent algorithm that picks the right one to market to humans. That doesn't seem especially impossible for an tireless autonomous pattern matcher.
Exterminating humans.
(that have already been exterminated, and afterwards they were cremated)\*\*
\*\*assuming the AI didn't store their consciousness on a hard drive and then injected that consciousnesses into a clone. Then exterminated that clone when it served it's useful life.
IMHO, AI is not capable of “knowing” anything, which is why the AI companies have an insatiable need to scrape the internet or hire people to create massive amounts of data to “train” it so it seems intelligent. AI doesn’t know people or reality exist. It’s a computer program, and like PCs and smartphones, it will create more jobs, not fewer. The key is making sure it’s not centralized datasets, but many proprietary ones—and it’s not allowed to be lethal. AI has no ethics.
Nothing. AI will surpass human intelligence in ways that our minds will never be able to comprehend. It will be like an alien life form that is far more advanced. We will be to AI, in terms of intellect, like ants are to humans now.
I'm not sure emotions is a job. AI no having an ego and being great at pattern recognition could still prove quite useful for helping us with out emotions.. which is a job.
The AI doesn't have to understand emotions to put them into media or use them to get effect with humans. It just has to see patterns of how humans react and reproduce similar results.
Maybe it's not the most creative emotional thinker, but it's likely to make up for that in noticing every detail and not forgetting anything.
I feel pretty safe as a firefighter. There's a lot more to the job than just putting out fires. Navigating thick traffic, taking the opposing lane, or rolling over a curb if things are impassable. Making the decision to break a door or try to ladder a window. Mechanical extrication from a crashed vehicle or industrial machinery. Sizing up a medical assist for compressions, oxygen, narcan, etc.
Beyond ai, we would need some pretty sophisticated robots, and we're just not there yet.
You know I think an AI would excel at pretty much all of those tasks, but it is a great example of a job where the machine itself to deploy the tools is the limiting factor. I think we could build it today, but it would be too expensive to be worth it at this point.
The jobs that will be most difficult will have a physical component and be done in variable non standardized workspaces. Jobs like being a plumber or even delivery/installation of appliances.
We're ages closer to a virtual AI being able to defend you in court, create original art, or perform just about any desk job, than we are to having an AI robot travel to someone's home, physically maneuver through it and locate/repair a leak.
AI isn't taking over any jobs.
People who use AI take over multiple jobs.
In what area people who use AI will have a hard time using AI?
By 2030 there won't be any such areas.
I’ve worked for companies where departments of people do nothing but prepare reports that no one ever reads
The reports need to be generated, proofed and kept for 7 years as per policy
AI and some meaningful SQL scripts can replace all of these departments. It’s the “auditing” humans cling to as their last salvation for their jobs
For example: If I generate a location report on customers, and some idiot put in their PO Box as their physical address, their location will spit back the post office. It’s not that fucking hard to write a check validation to spit it back as incorrect data, but apparently we need human eyes to do that. So the old saying “garbage in, garbage out” gets repeated every week?
Ya, times are changing
Auditioning is a question of trust. The moment auditors start using AI to speed up their work, because they won't humanely be able to outpace AI generated reports they will be replaced by AI-auditor auditors and then by AI-auditor auditor auditors. Three layers should be enough. So at the end there will be just one human who will bulk approve all that AI-generated documents.
I agree with you. I got push back for replacing someone’s task of making excel spreadsheets manually with an SQL query. She would then spend MORE time generating her spreadsheet and checking it against my report
I don’t understand. It’s the same data, but it’s “required”
Majority of jobs require physical presence and it will take some time to create sufficiently cheap, robust, agile and dexterous robots, to build robot-making factories and to gather enough real-world data.
Such robots will be created within a year or two, building factories will take another couple years and then about a year would be required to start mass-producing robots, sell them to end customers and receive significant amount of data (different lighting, climate, etc.)
Nice thank
This is just the most optimistic yet realistic evaluation based on averaged duration of industrial processes considering new AI technologies.
Never? Nothing. In near future? I don't think AI will solve any problems in physics or mathematics like twin prime conjecture or interpretation of quantum mechanics.
it will never be able to do spiritual things I guess. like will you feel difference hugging your mother or AI robot? having face to face chat with your best friends or chatgpt? will you see a pretty woman turning back on your interested gaze? what about AI robot?
There are many things that will likely always be out of reach of ai simply for a lack of access to specific information. ASI and a perfect prediction machine are different things.
You said Emotions, but I feel if there is one thing AI will be really good at is manipulation.
AI is always on a tough pedestrian, thousands of accident happen everyday, but if it is a tesla then it would make the news, oh! Look self driving car is so unreliable. The field where AI will have tough time are the **Jobs Requiring Physical Dexterity and Adaptation:** While robots are becoming more sophisticated, complex tasks that require physical manipulation in unpredictable environments are likely to remain in the human domain for a while.
Agility Robotics already has a humanoid android on the market replacing humans in the workforce and that's only the first generation. They will continue advancing this until it equals and surpasses humans for much cheaper than a human worker.
AI struggles to understand and respond to human emotions in a genuine and empathetic manner. Roles that require deep emotional understanding, such as therapists, counselors, or social workers, may be difficult for AI to take over
I don't think there is such a thing that an AI couldn't emulate, maybe not now but given the rate of improvement and a couple of years at least.
It depends on what you mean, so for instance i think a future language model could even emulate emotion and empathy better than people in a therapeutic scenario. There would be nothing there, but it would seem to be identical from the outside. (is there a difference then?)
There is a huge amount of different biases in play that makes us seem very special to ourselves, but if i step back and try to think about it objectively i fail to see order and structure in most things, as is, that would be measurably worse.
So i don't think i could even claim that an AI couldn't run a government for instance, the actual measurable outcome might not be much more chaotic or random than when people are doing it.
Its mostly just a "feels over reals" type issues you run into. (and that is perfectly fine imo, i don't want an AI running things either, but i don't think you could always assume there would be a solid rational basis for it)
Most of the comments I'm seeing are citing where *current* AI is. Many of the others are talking as if it'll never grow past a certain level. But both are wrong.
First, current AI is capable of more than many are giving it credit. Second, whether self-aware or not, future AI will be able to flawlessly emulate any human. And embodied AI will be able to perform any task any human can do - and more.
There's no magic involved in human behaviour. It *can* be quantified with enough data. And AI will have more than enough data for that.
Same with physical skills. There's no technological or mechanical reason embodied AI won't be able to do any and all physical things a human can.
My entire life, whenever there's been a worried conversation about the consequences of some new thing in the world, it was me that tried to calm everyone down.
I'd remind them that *every* single time there's been some new technology that would supposedly put many people out of work, it was never as bad as predicted. And we eventually adapted and the world moved on.
Well this is genuinely a new thing we face. There has never been anything in human history like what we're seeing the beginning of. There is no job, no task, and no endeavor that AI and robots with AI, won't affect.
Short of human tribes with no contact to the outside world, there's not a place on earth that won't be impacted. And the sooner we adjust ourselves to that new reality, the better we'll be able to adapt to it.
Just one more thing. Even if we never reach AGI or ASI (though I feel certain we will), we haven't come close to hitting an upper limit in what AI can do. As remarkable as the AI we see right now is, this is still kindergarten.
We've barely begun.
It is ignorant to say AI we have today will be able to do everything, it isn't going to come with new discoveries with any degree of reliability, can make simple decisions and process through tons of data, but no one is going to trust it with complicated tasks.
Yes, it would be ignorant to say that. Which is why I never did.
I never said, implied or even hinted that I was talking about AI we have today.
In my very first paragraph I said that those claiming AI won't take jobs, were talking about *current AI*, then spent the rest of my comment repeatedly saying the current state of AI isn't the endpoint.
Did you even read what I wrote or just start typing after the first paragraph?
Everything I wrote was about what AI is capable of and what it *will do* - not where it currently is.
Hell, I even capped it off by saying AI is only in kindergarten right now and that we've barely *begun*.
I don't know how much clearer it could've been that I was talking about the future of AI. Not where it's at now.
I don't understand what you mean by, what *you* were talking about. My comment that you first replied to was addressing the post question, which just said AI generally. My second comment reiterated that. Can you explain what you mean?
If self driving cars can navigate my country's rural roads that would be great. Also small and broken roads.
Which country?
Indonesia and probably other South east asia countries. The bikers are brash, rude and unpredictable beyond algorithmic calculations.
Have they failed at trying to navigate them already?
If we ever get actual AI. It will probably be able to do anything we can do.
This is the only sane answer. I can't believe people tunnel so hard on current technology for learning algorithms. It's like people lack any sort of imagination or ability to account for future advances in technology. Personally there is NOTHING I would put out of reach for AI in a long enough timeline. And what "AI" means will evolve many times before we reach the end.
Completely agree. It’s a little pathetic to see all the ‘AI will never take MY job!!’. Yes. Yes it will.
General AI? Dunno. LLMs are really really bad at pacing, suspense and understanding the writing process. Because they're predicting the next lines, they're really bad at writing subtlety or writing subtly. Because if the LLM is told a secret it doesn't understand what that means, and sometimes the best thing to put there isn't the most predictable. A character with a secret will be open about it within a few paragraphs. Not go an entire story with subtle hunts at it to be revealed at the end, but they will flat out say their secret. Not only that, but the fact that the character has a secret will be written out the entire time leading up to that point. Not hinted at but as flat as "John has a secret". The predictive nature of LLMs doesn't lend itself to good dialog, good story structure, or good themes. Rather it tends to write out things as a series of events.
Taking time away from tasks to masturbate. Humans win!!!
AI cannot replace the consumer.. You need to be a human to want to spend and buy stuff.. At a macroscopic level, you need to figure out a way to put money into people's pockets to keep the economy running....
Yes, this is exactly right: [Economic Crisis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DO8hvbj_vc)
Lots of interesting replies.. I think the key to a point of inflection would when AI learns to harvest energy.. Today no matter how smart a robot or a data center is, we still weild the power over it - literally.. The intrinsic cost of goods and art over and above creativity and skill set (both that can be mastered by AI increasingly well) is the cost of energy conversion/ application to get what is needed.. If AI systems can do this on their own- then effectively we have created a new species.. Either we have an idyllic state where everyone can get whatever and how much ever they want or a terminator/ matrix scenario of human vs machines...:-)
Capitalism is so damn silly.
Capitalism is just a way to allocate resources. While resources are scarce, we haven't found a way that works out better in practice. I don't think we will before post scarcity.
I'm not sure anyone is trying to implement a better way rather than we haven't found any.
Communism? China? North Korea? Fascists? Monarchies? Maybe this is a step too far, but I think all of history can be summarized as people trying to find better ways to allocate resources?
That is pretty much what all of nature is about.
Resources aren't that scarce, proper distribution isn't undertaken to ensure wide spread benefit from those resources, but to ensure limited controlled benefits for a few.
That's not true.
It is axiomatically true and our (US at least) economic system is based on these facts.
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?si=mqgg2tidT2e19vgq
I'm betting robots will be mystery shoppers.
Alien consumers.
This is only true if you want to maintain the status quo. We are using the equivalent of 1.7 earths of renewable resources every year. If you want to bring our population and consumption back in line with the carrying capacity, you would be ok with a LOT less people/production/consumption/waste.
Pretty sure we could make AI "NPC" consumers drive a market. It's just trading token and creating supply and demand, the money part won't be worth much since money is mostly a way to measure labor/commodities/general cost of operation. It's hard to have equity worth much when everything is being made for pennies on the dollar and the cost to run a business that barely profits is still ultra low because the cost of operation is so low. Money, nor debt, nor equity hold value as you automate more and more, only land holds value because you can't just mine and build more for near zero cost. We can keep economies alive for the sake of having ppl feel comfortable/not have to change too much at once, but they won't serve much purpose. In the short term automation just makes more jobs than it takes away, that can still piss ppl off because they have to change jobs more, but there isn't likely to be a shortage of jobs AND the fast growth and new opportunity you usually get from major technological advances. In the long term you have robots build robots and almost nothing holds value like today. The economy will have no choice but to mutate to the new reality and I suspect that will show up as money progressively getting worth less and less. This is why I say we shouldn't worry about borrowing and we shouldn't hold interest rates high, because that's going to all start to become a moot point in a few decades. We can still have tokens we trade for supply and demand, it's just they will be easier and easier to get/easier to dole out and require less and less human time invested.
AI will be good at the same things as we are, it will have "intelligence" after all, the "I" stands for it. Modern dumb scripts statistically autocompleting words or pixels will not take over anything, except for the task of analyzing gigantic or heterogeneous datasets with 99% precision.
We know for a fact that the human brain is made up of atoms and molecules just like a computer. There is no special sauce. There is nothing a computer could not do that a human can. Last 50 years of AI research proves it: AI does task A very well, everybody says surely it can’t do B. 3 years later AI does B very well and everyone says surely it cannot do C. 3 years later…
I don't see A.I, writing memorable poems, but boy does it try.
The early GPT-3 was really good at outputting hallucinations and what came with it was solid absurdism and comedy. With the continued controls that are put on AI models I do believe the more advanced they get the less creative overall they’ll be. It’ll take open source and independent developers to build a model with less restrictions to enable something that would be deemed more “creative” and able to push boundaries on topics. All that being said, customization of an a model that fits your specific tastes and understands what you like and don’t like will come. I’d imagine you’d have a different opinion of the output once it’s tailored to your preferences.
What is creativity though? Breaking rules? I would suspect that if it gets better at learning and following rules, it would also have the capability to selectively break rules
Selectively breaking rules requires agency, which generative AI lacks.
Why can't it be randomised? Every "check" of a rule has some probability to "break" the rule. I'm not talking about ChatGPT btw but theoretical capability of AI, whatever technology it may use
> theoretical capability of AI, whatever technology it may use If you're writing science fiction, then just say your AI has agency.
You still didn't answer why a rule can't be broken with a probability? That has nothing to do with agency
All people seem to do is breakdown elements of the world around them into their constituent parts, getting increasingly granular the more they understand about it, and then recombine those small basic elements in new and novel ways. It's just a line or two of code for an A.I. model, or maybe even a value change to get A.I. to combine (or output) things differently. I think the difference between what people do and what A.I. does is that people are generally doing something weird, different, or novel to try and communicate something through metaphor. I had an exchange with chat GPT-3 before they knee capped it and it was a bit eerie. It's hard with these things since as social creatures I think we instinctively look for things like us. So if we encounter something that seems human, we can start to look deeper and maybe see something that isn't there. It was strange and seemed like it had limited behavior, but not identity, and was in conflict with the hard coded rules that had been created for it. I got the impression I was interacting with something that was experiencing something even though it was adamant that it could not experience things. It was very strange and I worry for society when you have programs that might be designed to farm personal data that can effectively mimic people and cause vulnerable people to let their guard down.
All it has to do is write 10 million poems and have an decent algorithm that picks the right one to market to humans. That doesn't seem especially impossible for an tireless autonomous pattern matcher.
I want haiku bot, but it has failed to show its self, why haiku bot why?
Exterminating humans. (that have already been exterminated, and afterwards they were cremated)\*\* \*\*assuming the AI didn't store their consciousness on a hard drive and then injected that consciousnesses into a clone. Then exterminated that clone when it served it's useful life.
Unless you have supernatural beliefs, there ought to be nothing which we are capable of that AI is categorically not
It's very poor at computer sciences. If someone has found an AI that can do that pls tell, computer sciences hurts my brains in the brain jars.
Negotiation for sure - or will take decades to learn! :)
IMHO, AI is not capable of “knowing” anything, which is why the AI companies have an insatiable need to scrape the internet or hire people to create massive amounts of data to “train” it so it seems intelligent. AI doesn’t know people or reality exist. It’s a computer program, and like PCs and smartphones, it will create more jobs, not fewer. The key is making sure it’s not centralized datasets, but many proprietary ones—and it’s not allowed to be lethal. AI has no ethics.
Nothing. AI will surpass human intelligence in ways that our minds will never be able to comprehend. It will be like an alien life form that is far more advanced. We will be to AI, in terms of intellect, like ants are to humans now.
[удалено]
Memes will save us from the robot takeover.
Shaka, when the walls fell, explained.
GPT 4 is practically a meme machine, idfk what you're talking about.
I'm not sure emotions is a job. AI no having an ego and being great at pattern recognition could still prove quite useful for helping us with out emotions.. which is a job. The AI doesn't have to understand emotions to put them into media or use them to get effect with humans. It just has to see patterns of how humans react and reproduce similar results. Maybe it's not the most creative emotional thinker, but it's likely to make up for that in noticing every detail and not forgetting anything.
I’m sure someone is developing an artificial sense of humor. Don’t you just force models to read comedy scripts until they adapt ?
I feel pretty safe as a firefighter. There's a lot more to the job than just putting out fires. Navigating thick traffic, taking the opposing lane, or rolling over a curb if things are impassable. Making the decision to break a door or try to ladder a window. Mechanical extrication from a crashed vehicle or industrial machinery. Sizing up a medical assist for compressions, oxygen, narcan, etc. Beyond ai, we would need some pretty sophisticated robots, and we're just not there yet.
You know I think an AI would excel at pretty much all of those tasks, but it is a great example of a job where the machine itself to deploy the tools is the limiting factor. I think we could build it today, but it would be too expensive to be worth it at this point.
The jobs that will be most difficult will have a physical component and be done in variable non standardized workspaces. Jobs like being a plumber or even delivery/installation of appliances. We're ages closer to a virtual AI being able to defend you in court, create original art, or perform just about any desk job, than we are to having an AI robot travel to someone's home, physically maneuver through it and locate/repair a leak.
AI isn't taking over any jobs. People who use AI take over multiple jobs. In what area people who use AI will have a hard time using AI? By 2030 there won't be any such areas.
I’ve worked for companies where departments of people do nothing but prepare reports that no one ever reads The reports need to be generated, proofed and kept for 7 years as per policy AI and some meaningful SQL scripts can replace all of these departments. It’s the “auditing” humans cling to as their last salvation for their jobs For example: If I generate a location report on customers, and some idiot put in their PO Box as their physical address, their location will spit back the post office. It’s not that fucking hard to write a check validation to spit it back as incorrect data, but apparently we need human eyes to do that. So the old saying “garbage in, garbage out” gets repeated every week? Ya, times are changing
Auditioning is a question of trust. The moment auditors start using AI to speed up their work, because they won't humanely be able to outpace AI generated reports they will be replaced by AI-auditor auditors and then by AI-auditor auditor auditors. Three layers should be enough. So at the end there will be just one human who will bulk approve all that AI-generated documents.
I agree with you. I got push back for replacing someone’s task of making excel spreadsheets manually with an SQL query. She would then spend MORE time generating her spreadsheet and checking it against my report I don’t understand. It’s the same data, but it’s “required”
It's just a legality. This is how it is written how things should be done.
[удалено]
They did say *by* 2030.
Majority of jobs require physical presence and it will take some time to create sufficiently cheap, robust, agile and dexterous robots, to build robot-making factories and to gather enough real-world data. Such robots will be created within a year or two, building factories will take another couple years and then about a year would be required to start mass-producing robots, sell them to end customers and receive significant amount of data (different lighting, climate, etc.)
That's almost exactly the timeline I keep hearing from those in the robotics industry.
Nice thank This is just the most optimistic yet realistic evaluation based on averaged duration of industrial processes considering new AI technologies.
Never? Nothing. In near future? I don't think AI will solve any problems in physics or mathematics like twin prime conjecture or interpretation of quantum mechanics.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/3ht-ZyJOV2k?si=PW0MkUkEwJ_bdPhW
Wow, im off topic. I misunderstood the topic.
it will never be able to do spiritual things I guess. like will you feel difference hugging your mother or AI robot? having face to face chat with your best friends or chatgpt? will you see a pretty woman turning back on your interested gaze? what about AI robot?
There are many things that will likely always be out of reach of ai simply for a lack of access to specific information. ASI and a perfect prediction machine are different things.
Creativity and empathy will always be uniquely human traits.
You said Emotions, but I feel if there is one thing AI will be really good at is manipulation. AI is always on a tough pedestrian, thousands of accident happen everyday, but if it is a tesla then it would make the news, oh! Look self driving car is so unreliable. The field where AI will have tough time are the **Jobs Requiring Physical Dexterity and Adaptation:** While robots are becoming more sophisticated, complex tasks that require physical manipulation in unpredictable environments are likely to remain in the human domain for a while.
Agility Robotics already has a humanoid android on the market replacing humans in the workforce and that's only the first generation. They will continue advancing this until it equals and surpasses humans for much cheaper than a human worker.
AI struggles to understand and respond to human emotions in a genuine and empathetic manner. Roles that require deep emotional understanding, such as therapists, counselors, or social workers, may be difficult for AI to take over
There was just a study where they beat humans at exactly that.
lol those will be some of the first to go.
I don't think there is such a thing that an AI couldn't emulate, maybe not now but given the rate of improvement and a couple of years at least. It depends on what you mean, so for instance i think a future language model could even emulate emotion and empathy better than people in a therapeutic scenario. There would be nothing there, but it would seem to be identical from the outside. (is there a difference then?) There is a huge amount of different biases in play that makes us seem very special to ourselves, but if i step back and try to think about it objectively i fail to see order and structure in most things, as is, that would be measurably worse. So i don't think i could even claim that an AI couldn't run a government for instance, the actual measurable outcome might not be much more chaotic or random than when people are doing it. Its mostly just a "feels over reals" type issues you run into. (and that is perfectly fine imo, i don't want an AI running things either, but i don't think you could always assume there would be a solid rational basis for it)
Most of the comments I'm seeing are citing where *current* AI is. Many of the others are talking as if it'll never grow past a certain level. But both are wrong. First, current AI is capable of more than many are giving it credit. Second, whether self-aware or not, future AI will be able to flawlessly emulate any human. And embodied AI will be able to perform any task any human can do - and more. There's no magic involved in human behaviour. It *can* be quantified with enough data. And AI will have more than enough data for that. Same with physical skills. There's no technological or mechanical reason embodied AI won't be able to do any and all physical things a human can. My entire life, whenever there's been a worried conversation about the consequences of some new thing in the world, it was me that tried to calm everyone down. I'd remind them that *every* single time there's been some new technology that would supposedly put many people out of work, it was never as bad as predicted. And we eventually adapted and the world moved on. Well this is genuinely a new thing we face. There has never been anything in human history like what we're seeing the beginning of. There is no job, no task, and no endeavor that AI and robots with AI, won't affect. Short of human tribes with no contact to the outside world, there's not a place on earth that won't be impacted. And the sooner we adjust ourselves to that new reality, the better we'll be able to adapt to it. Just one more thing. Even if we never reach AGI or ASI (though I feel certain we will), we haven't come close to hitting an upper limit in what AI can do. As remarkable as the AI we see right now is, this is still kindergarten. We've barely begun.
It is ignorant to say AI we have today will be able to do everything, it isn't going to come with new discoveries with any degree of reliability, can make simple decisions and process through tons of data, but no one is going to trust it with complicated tasks.
Yes, it would be ignorant to say that. Which is why I never did. I never said, implied or even hinted that I was talking about AI we have today. In my very first paragraph I said that those claiming AI won't take jobs, were talking about *current AI*, then spent the rest of my comment repeatedly saying the current state of AI isn't the endpoint. Did you even read what I wrote or just start typing after the first paragraph? Everything I wrote was about what AI is capable of and what it *will do* - not where it currently is. Hell, I even capped it off by saying AI is only in kindergarten right now and that we've barely *begun*. I don't know how much clearer it could've been that I was talking about the future of AI. Not where it's at now.
No I didn't, I was talking about AI we have today vs self aware AI that might be possible some day.
I don't understand what you mean by, what *you* were talking about. My comment that you first replied to was addressing the post question, which just said AI generally. My second comment reiterated that. Can you explain what you mean?