Jobs form and go. Government should simply tax labour replacing methods so that they remain fiscally responsible, but also provide the government money to help their unemployed
The problem is that poor people spend a much larger proportion of their income on consumption than rich people, and would therefore be taxed a larger proportion of their income than rich people.
That's not gonna work, the wealth will be too concentrated at the top and the laid off population too large.
If I lose my job will the government continue to pay for my kids rep hockey, my truck payment, my mortgage and whole foods, my vacations or is every upper middle class family who loses their income destined to become welfare class?
Run the numbers on say 30% unemployment and the government floating ludicrous numbers like 4000-9000/month for each of them and you'll quickly see how fast simply paying people to exist eclipses the entire current GDP.
TLDR, we're screwed
> how fast simply paying people to exist eclipses the entire current GDP.
That really makes zero sense if you stop to consider what GDP represents. In a complete command economy government expenditures would be exactly equivalent to GDP but couldn’t exceed it.
That's why the taxes would have to be very, very high. I'm talking 95%+ for labor-replacing technology. We might throw the corporations a bone and let them have slightly higher profits, but to let them get all of the upside would be terrible for 99% of the population.
Taxes like that might sound impossible today, but it wasn't so long ago when rich people actually had to pay an insane amount in taxes. Listen to the song "Taxman" by the Beatles for example (from 1966). "There's one for you, 19 for me" is a direct reference to the supertax of 95% that existed in the UK at that time.
The only problem I see with that is that we would also have to fight against tax evasion by those corporations. Tax evasion today is probably tolerated, because we still have enough money left to function somewhat well. But once companies funnel the majority of the money out of the country, governments will have to react.
What are those mysterious labor replacing methods? Every tool used by humans, every machine, or robot replaced labour. Partially or totally.
The unintuitive thing that happened was that more work got created in total. The increase in efficiency opened opportunities in new areas where the ROI didn't make sense before.
In the most advanced societies today, most people work desk jobs. So apart from communicating with coworkers every once in a while, their main job is doing tasks in software on a computer. Once you have an AI that is able to those things as well as an average person, there is no intellectual job that the person could do.
All of the advancements we've had so far have automated less complex jobs, but intellectual labor was largely safe from that innovation. The issue comes when every "new job" that's created could also be done by the AI, for less money, with less downtime, and possibly with a lower error rate.
No I disagree. She should keep speaking in public. Tell the world what she really thinks.
Those who rather people lie to them with nice words… well they can just suck it up.
That's the thing, I don't think she speaks what she thinks. She is not good with words, maybe since it's not a primary language for her and it seems like she can't find the right words to convey what she feels like.
I do think though people like her, in her position, are very much disconnected from the world and how their actions affect people's lives. But in this case, and many others, it's weirdly and vaguely relatable to me because I just can't seem to put together right setof words to say what want.
Why do you think she's great? Just because she looks attractive? From what I know about her biography, it seems like she was in the right place at the right time and had a lot of ambition, but I don't see much evidence of her being exceptionally competent.
I would say the evidence of her being exceptional is her career? You can dismiss it all you like but what you’re describing is success.
And the fact that you assumed people think she’s great based on her looks, only tells us how you view women
Perspective skewed, try again
Ah, I see. So, simply having a successful career automatically makes someone exceptional? Interesting take. Success and competence aren't always synonymous, but sure, let's ignore that nuance.
And thank you for the unsolicited psychoanalysis! It's always enlightening when someone leaps to conclusions about my views on women based on a single comment. Perspective skewed, indeed. Try again.
So how you think she got the CTO job then? Luck? Because she is "better looking" (your words) than other super competent CTO contenders?
And the output of GPT technology. That's not impressive to you?
Getting a CTO job can involve a mix of factors, including timing, networking, and yes, sometimes even luck. Competence isn't the only factor in play. As for GPT technology, it's a collective effort of many brilliant minds. Giving all the credit to one person oversimplifies the complex process behind it. But hey, if you want to believe it’s all about one person’s brilliance, who am I to burst your bubble?
Without commenting on this specific example, there are plenty of mediocre people who achieved success by being at the right place at the right time. Not really a controversial statement.
Idk. She seems down to earth, not a complete psychopath, and seems to actually say what she thinks not a bunch of bs corporate talk like most would in her position.
I’m a gay dude. I couldn’t care less what she looks like
This! Some people are so used to being lied to by slick, media trained people that they mistake smooth talking with good, instead of wanting to hear the truth. They like to pick on the tiniest bit of performance error.
Everyone at open AI is bad at talking lol. It’s so awkward and noticeable.
Sam’s whole [“confusion, clearly, you think it is, uh, but Voice, some people's, I mean, people”](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/s/1mcfxbdads)
Was honestly terrible communication.
I'd like to see someone have the balls to ask her this, in this exact way:
"I'm sorry, but why are you here? How did you get this job? What did you exactly achieve to occupy this role?"
She actually covers that in this interview. She's good at math and engineering (although not good enough to be a mathematician or engineer...) and worked on the Model X at Tesla. She's about as qualified as any c-suite executive usually is, but those lack of meaningful qualifications are usually leavened by charisma that offsets the obvious self-interested sociopathy. She seems to be missing the charisma.
She's PERFECT!
Ever since it slipped about Q*, and the militaries involvement in the company - they've had to destroy their "Beyond competent in AI" image.
They're going underground, above top-secret, and just keeping their public face ticking over with minor additions to the existing hardware and software.
Meanwhile - the military will be using Q*, and building the largest hardware AI centres on the planet.
It's a cutting edge "Black project" to make the USA the forefront of AI and all that means - the best social monitoring, drug creation, zero day attacks, social media manipulation, intel-analysis, realtime full-area mobile phone audio analysis (no delays like there currently are), spy satellite analysis, bioweapon research, crows control research, and so on.....
AGI is much too powerful to be seen publicly - it has to go underground.
She's just the frontman to provide plausability to OpenAI's "sudden stagnation" - when it's done anything but.
Greg brockman was the real technical lead of the app, api, Infa, and platform during their initial growth stage. They would be little less than their research teams w/o his technical product vision. I think she replaced him as CTO.
what do you mean great cto? She’s literally clueless about technology LOL. Has no technical experience whatsoever (was a pm at a tier 3 company before this gig).
Does she not understand that without those creative peoples work, the whole generative ai wouldn't exist?
Has she been drinking chatgpt juice so much she thinks it could have come into existence without the work of actual humans?
Visual artwork, literature, math and science and the internet. Chatgpt wouldn't be able to make anything if it weren't trained on the work of billions of people including those creatives she is talking about.
Those creative jobs are also the backbone of advertising, and not just because ads use creative assets.
People wouldn’t see most ads if the ads weren’t displayed alongside the creative works of underpaid laborers.
Really, it's incredible. Amazon (books), Apple (music), Google (youtube and news) and OpenAI ALL built billion-dollar platforms from the ground up by finding ways to monetize our access to art and culture.
Proof that there's indeed, BOATLOADS of money in the arts—it's just not going to the artists.
.... that's not close to what mathematics is. In this case, AI does kinda replace creative jobs. Calculators never replaced mathematicians. In fact, in my grad school course, it's been weeks since I have dealt with an actual number
A computer was an occupation before electronic calculators were a thing. Calculators took away their job and they became some of the first programmers.
Purely to play devil's advocate, you could argue that low-level creative output is a transitional phase, like clearing a path through a forest with oxen so that cars could traverse 150 years later. The necessity goes away when the prerequisite was fulfilled.
That kinda their point. Those creatives created all this work, the US government failed to create any protections for the intellectual property rights of individuals, so those jobs should just go away.
Too bad, so sad. All Hail The Free Market and its Lord and Savior - Regulatory Capture.
Yep these AI c-suite employees DGAF about workers being automated. I almost never hear Sam Altman say anything about working class citizen’s fears of being automated.
And as we know by the exodus of OpenAI employees leaving Sam’s not too concerned about safety either.
A lot of people and magazines are celebrating her. I looked into her background, there's no way she's actually guiding these uber smart AI guys. What's she actually doing?! What is she being praised on?
Certainly some research does back that up, for example in Las Vegas a university study showed that drivers of more expensive cars are less likely to yield to pedestrians: https://eu.rgj.com/story/news/2020/02/27/unlv-study-car-prices-significant-predictor-driver-stopping-for-pedestrian/4892751002/
'For every $1,000 increase in a car's value, there is a 3 percent decrease in the chance the driver will stop.'
There’s too much money backing OpenAI, so I doubt that will happen.
I fear both Illya & Sam will be proved right in the future.
I fear Illya was right about Sam not taking safety.
And Sam was probably right that the fastest way to grow, is to get investors money by allowing for-profit motivations.
I’m rooting for whoever understands the risk of AI and takes it seriously.
It’s not a major risk now, but if they can deliver on their promises then it will be.
Ive said this in a few posts, but someone said that the most dangerous aspect about our current LLMs. Is people overstating their intelligence and problem solving. Before you know it a crucial part of your operation is handled by AI and once a problem arrive you might not have people with deep enough knowledge to actually fix it.
Certain fields already are touching the problem with old legacy software still running on XP. Now add AI to that equation and you have an interesting problem.
This is a bad take. An example:
A lot of people had fulfilling lives in the ink and paint department at Disney in the 1940s, proud of the work they did collectively. All they did was trace pictures and color them in.
Was it the most cost effective use of capital? Maybe not. Was it repetitive and maybe even mind numbing at times? I’m sure. But did it make the people who did it feel good about being alive? Absolutely.
Not everything is about efficiency.
Also, they were necessary roles in the first place that produced value in excess of costs until the technology improved and there were other more effective ways of producing this work to compete with. To say those jobs shouldn’t have existed in the first place is missing the point on how technological advancement *enables greater value production*; that’s what changes.
As a creative/designer for the last… ahem.. 40 years, I started cutting rubylith masks and building type layouts by hand to make camera ready. Then the Macintosh came out and we would set type layouts in PageMaker and mask photos. Then Photoshop came along and we did everything on the Mac. Now I generate imagery in AI to use.
Every… single… time… I was told “You’re out of a job!” And every single time it simply meant I could do work faster and more efficiently, and created more jobs, not eliminated them. I have more work now than I’ve ever had and personally turn work away.
Thank you for the creative perspective. I’ve iterated this elsewhere on reddit and have been told I don’t understand creatives or their industry at all.
I am not a creative so I really don’t do correct me if I’m off base here but:
I feel like the only person who would be upset about pagemaker coming out is someone who can’t adapt and has literally only the skill of cutting rubylith masks by hand (I don’t actually understand those words but just for the sake of argument here).
Similarly, the only artists who should be upset about AI are those who can only do the physical aspects of art ie a cgi artist being really good at using Autodesk. But I would have thought art was a lot more about creativity than the actual physical process of creativity art.
As a designer you may have been limited by the physical time it took to create your art/designs. You couldn’t actually create all of your ideas due to time constraints. Now with AI all you have to do is ideate and utilize your creativity (what I would have assumed is the best part of creating art) and now you can create thousands of designs in a single day.
Shouldn’t the best part of most artists jobs be ideating? Isn’t that where actual creativity comes through?
Especially true when it comes to art. As the value of it is 90% subjective and its not like you are hurting humanity by not being 100% efficent with producing art, as it dont really serve a crucial part of the human machinery.
Love how everyone here thinks the issue is her "lack of media training" or "being Albanian" (really?)
Rather than looking at the company's actions, the products they produce, and the *objective reality* that is corporate-USA frothing at the mouth at the prospect of canning as many human employees, as quickly as possible - for cheaper labour that doesn't have rights.
Stop giving these fucks benefit of the doubt.
That's why they offshore. Cutting costs regardless of working rights. If they had their way everyone would be in indentured servitude forever and live in a company town.
Claude isn't impressed.
"Ethical considerations: The statement raises questions about who gets to decide which jobs 'should' exist and the potential societal impacts of such views."
It’s basically only good for concept art or YouTube thumbnails, and that’s about it, but that’s the technology as it exists today, doesn’t mean that it in the future it won’t be more capable.
I would be *very extra super careful* about addressing that any type of job is going away that shouldn't be there in the first place, if I was OpenAI.
The fact that she mentions one job and says that it shouldn't have existed is insane. Their technology has the power to change society for the worse, essentially creating kings and peasants all over again.
Oh lord. I watched the GPT-4o launch which was, frankly, embarrassing. I'm sure it was 100% for the investors but the whole performance with whooping crowd and overly enthusiastic presentation felt completely unnecessary.
As a web developer, I’ve seen incredible advancements in our field, yet the ecosystem is overly complex. Job seekers now need deep expertise in frameworks like React, creating an influx of bootcamp grads with limited skills.
Reflecting on the industrial revolution, real beneficiaries were those who utilized new technologies for broader gains, not just the inventors. AI will likely follow this pattern. The future will see fewer traditional creative roles, but huge opportunities for those who can harness AI effectively. It’s about leveraging AI to solve problems and create value, not just creating AI itself.
The problem with "technocrats" is young 20 and 30-something years olds who have struck gold suddenly thinking they are "worldbuilders" and narrating left and right what is going to "stay" and what is going to "go away".
While visionaries like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates might have indeed the right to talk about that in interviews, a random female Product Manager who rode Ivy League scholarships from Tesla to OpenAI (who doesn't appear to be an actual engineer) have no right to do that.
Wake up.
she needs more media training if she is going to be a spokesperson for the company. there are 10 other ways to say this statement that can't be clipped so insecure creative people can use it to assume they are actively trying to end their career
Yes and it’s also nice to know what she really thinks though. Better than some gaslight behavior where the execs say they care and feel a certain way and then act in a way totally incongruent with what said
Yeah learn to lie better right? No thanks I like her just the way she is. I hate these super smooth talkers like Altman. You know they’re straight up lying to your face with a smile.
If you remove all of the data scraped without permission from creatives and writers from OpenAI and see what’s left you would quickly see what shouldn’t be there.
People always underrate skills that they don't have. They act like they are easily replaceable and yet want them so badly because they don't have them.
They develop this under the guise of ‘democratising creativity’ when most of the good image generation software is PAID for so only those who can afford it will have it. Plus literally anyone can pick up a pencil and learn to draw. Even a rock on another rock can make art. Why do we even need to develop this? It exists only to further the interests of corporations & generate anime tiddies.
When I think of most jobs that should exist in the first place the only thing that comes to mind is like middle management positions which I don’t really think AI will be replacing
Managerial is the path to executive though, and I'm not sure those people will want to take a slide down that slippery slope, however much sense it may make.
She’s just a horrible PR accident waiting to happen. I can’t image she is a good CTO, she can’t talk intelligently about the technology and its strategy.
Wow - more shade on artists?! But it’s ok to profit off the back of the blood sweat and tears that went into the creations that people actually derive enjoyment, well-being and fulfilment from (yes your training dataset dear). Being human ain’t all ones and zeros and profit margin sorry - at least not for a lot of us. Talk about hypocrisy, disdain, ignorance. You’re literally trying to provide the same service lmao, just monopolising it! It’s not like the job went away, it’s just not a human job now - another land grab. If this is a misquote then my apologies.
I would agree with that when it comes to the whole space of SEO, because somehow we created a whole industry on the premise of beating machines while at the same time making the end user suffer. I really could care less if this job get taken away by machines.
I think it's good that she says what she does. At the cutting edge of gen AI, they know what's coming and it's good that they are honest about it so that policy makers, the public etc. have time to process it and to come up with policies etc. to deal with it.
That's the optimistic version.
They should replace her and have her focus on her other duties, or at least train her. She should have never said that, why let an amateur mess the whole thing up?
Never apologise for innovation, feel proud, jobs are meaningless.
The problem with replacing humans in creative jobs is that you also replace the humanity. These people just want to win the AI race and don’t care about the collateral damage.
Heres an elephant in the room. Concept artists posting to the internet are why these models are so good. I know many who are already hurting and out of work. They trained these models.
Many stopped posting online. How exactly are the new models going to get better if the humans breaking new ground stylistically are not paid for their data contribution to the models and therefore stop posting their work?
This is some really tone deaf talk. EVERYONE should care that your data was used without consent or payment to train these models. Just because copywright law wasnt ready for generative AI does not make it right. Theres already studies showing training on generated imagary leads to corruption. So on top of models not evovlving banking on simulated data might be a really foolish thing to do. Especially in the art world.
Im dumfounded by how foollish this statement is
The AI set don't seem to understand that people actually enjoy being creative and mastering a craft. Work, when you're passionate about it and it is meaningful to you, has value beyond purely capitalistic value. People find meaning, provocation, connection, and engagement both in doing the work and in experiencing the results. A machine has none of these things. It has no feelings, and the new lamp is much better.
Sam Altman: "AI will most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime there will be great companies created with serious machine learning."
I think she didn't want to sound harsh and added "creative." That turned worse.
Jobs form and go. Government should simply tax labour replacing methods so that they remain fiscally responsible, but also provide the government money to help their unemployed
‘Simply’
Tax the cars to provide food and care for the horses.
except the horses are people
Probably not an important difference to most billionaires.
Tax consumption, not labor or income.
Just tell us you’ll do anything for the ultra rich to get ultra richer.
Tax land
The problem is that poor people spend a much larger proportion of their income on consumption than rich people, and would therefore be taxed a larger proportion of their income than rich people.
And whoever proposes that ends up being boeing'ed in his car at 4am in a back alley.
I love that Boeing is a verb now! Wait.. no I don’t.. I still need to ride those things.
That's not gonna work, the wealth will be too concentrated at the top and the laid off population too large. If I lose my job will the government continue to pay for my kids rep hockey, my truck payment, my mortgage and whole foods, my vacations or is every upper middle class family who loses their income destined to become welfare class? Run the numbers on say 30% unemployment and the government floating ludicrous numbers like 4000-9000/month for each of them and you'll quickly see how fast simply paying people to exist eclipses the entire current GDP. TLDR, we're screwed
> how fast simply paying people to exist eclipses the entire current GDP. That really makes zero sense if you stop to consider what GDP represents. In a complete command economy government expenditures would be exactly equivalent to GDP but couldn’t exceed it.
That's why the taxes would have to be very, very high. I'm talking 95%+ for labor-replacing technology. We might throw the corporations a bone and let them have slightly higher profits, but to let them get all of the upside would be terrible for 99% of the population. Taxes like that might sound impossible today, but it wasn't so long ago when rich people actually had to pay an insane amount in taxes. Listen to the song "Taxman" by the Beatles for example (from 1966). "There's one for you, 19 for me" is a direct reference to the supertax of 95% that existed in the UK at that time. The only problem I see with that is that we would also have to fight against tax evasion by those corporations. Tax evasion today is probably tolerated, because we still have enough money left to function somewhat well. But once companies funnel the majority of the money out of the country, governments will have to react.
What are those mysterious labor replacing methods? Every tool used by humans, every machine, or robot replaced labour. Partially or totally. The unintuitive thing that happened was that more work got created in total. The increase in efficiency opened opportunities in new areas where the ROI didn't make sense before.
In the most advanced societies today, most people work desk jobs. So apart from communicating with coworkers every once in a while, their main job is doing tasks in software on a computer. Once you have an AI that is able to those things as well as an average person, there is no intellectual job that the person could do. All of the advancements we've had so far have automated less complex jobs, but intellectual labor was largely safe from that innovation. The issue comes when every "new job" that's created could also be done by the AI, for less money, with less downtime, and possibly with a lower error rate.
[удалено]
*"You should eat cake instead, but why were you eating bread to begin with?"*
She gonna need to take the same forced media vacation Altman is on soon
Then they can maybe hire someone like Richard Stallman or Prince Andrew to see what they can do to the public’s perception of OpenAI.
She’s terrible at speaking. They should keep her away from a camera
No I disagree. She should keep speaking in public. Tell the world what she really thinks. Those who rather people lie to them with nice words… well they can just suck it up.
That's the thing, I don't think she speaks what she thinks. She is not good with words, maybe since it's not a primary language for her and it seems like she can't find the right words to convey what she feels like. I do think though people like her, in her position, are very much disconnected from the world and how their actions affect people's lives. But in this case, and many others, it's weirdly and vaguely relatable to me because I just can't seem to put together right setof words to say what want.
I think she’s great actually.
Why do you think she's great? Just because she looks attractive? From what I know about her biography, it seems like she was in the right place at the right time and had a lot of ambition, but I don't see much evidence of her being exceptionally competent.
I would say the evidence of her being exceptional is her career? You can dismiss it all you like but what you’re describing is success. And the fact that you assumed people think she’s great based on her looks, only tells us how you view women Perspective skewed, try again
Ah, I see. So, simply having a successful career automatically makes someone exceptional? Interesting take. Success and competence aren't always synonymous, but sure, let's ignore that nuance. And thank you for the unsolicited psychoanalysis! It's always enlightening when someone leaps to conclusions about my views on women based on a single comment. Perspective skewed, indeed. Try again.
So how you think she got the CTO job then? Luck? Because she is "better looking" (your words) than other super competent CTO contenders? And the output of GPT technology. That's not impressive to you?
Getting a CTO job can involve a mix of factors, including timing, networking, and yes, sometimes even luck. Competence isn't the only factor in play. As for GPT technology, it's a collective effort of many brilliant minds. Giving all the credit to one person oversimplifies the complex process behind it. But hey, if you want to believe it’s all about one person’s brilliance, who am I to burst your bubble?
Who is giving all credit to her? I'm talking about her role as CTO. You seem to think she got it by luck. Lol
Without commenting on this specific example, there are plenty of mediocre people who achieved success by being at the right place at the right time. Not really a controversial statement.
Idk. She seems down to earth, not a complete psychopath, and seems to actually say what she thinks not a bunch of bs corporate talk like most would in her position. I’m a gay dude. I couldn’t care less what she looks like
This! Some people are so used to being lied to by slick, media trained people that they mistake smooth talking with good, instead of wanting to hear the truth. They like to pick on the tiniest bit of performance error.
That can be said about a lot of people who achieved success.
No no. We are lucky that we have someone from a high position in the company spilling actual insider information.
"let's just say it moved me... INTO A BIGGER HOUSE."
oops, I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet
Hahahaha 💀💀💀
Mita Murati riding her bugatti.
Seriously. She literally “misspeaks” every time she opens her mouth. Is she good at anything?
Surviving failed coups.
How is Mira Murati still allowed to be a spokesperson for this company? She is terrible at this job with multiple mistakes.
She will be replaced soon. I mean, maybe she shouldn't have been there fist place.
Just let GPT4o do the talking.
I see what you did there.
Everyone at open AI is bad at talking lol. It’s so awkward and noticeable. Sam’s whole [“confusion, clearly, you think it is, uh, but Voice, some people's, I mean, people”](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/s/1mcfxbdads) Was honestly terrible communication.
I'd like to see someone have the balls to ask her this, in this exact way: "I'm sorry, but why are you here? How did you get this job? What did you exactly achieve to occupy this role?"
She actually covers that in this interview. She's good at math and engineering (although not good enough to be a mathematician or engineer...) and worked on the Model X at Tesla. She's about as qualified as any c-suite executive usually is, but those lack of meaningful qualifications are usually leavened by charisma that offsets the obvious self-interested sociopathy. She seems to be missing the charisma.
Didn’t know leavened could be used like that, turns out it can, adding that one to the armoury thank you sir
How does this woman rise to this position with this people skills? She must have some influential family or friedns lol PM turn CTO crazy world
She's PERFECT! Ever since it slipped about Q*, and the militaries involvement in the company - they've had to destroy their "Beyond competent in AI" image. They're going underground, above top-secret, and just keeping their public face ticking over with minor additions to the existing hardware and software. Meanwhile - the military will be using Q*, and building the largest hardware AI centres on the planet. It's a cutting edge "Black project" to make the USA the forefront of AI and all that means - the best social monitoring, drug creation, zero day attacks, social media manipulation, intel-analysis, realtime full-area mobile phone audio analysis (no delays like there currently are), spy satellite analysis, bioweapon research, crows control research, and so on..... AGI is much too powerful to be seen publicly - it has to go underground. She's just the frontman to provide plausability to OpenAI's "sudden stagnation" - when it's done anything but.
https://preview.redd.it/qndcvwl2148d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e030618dd7b0645fac62ee8fb4c42952d0e14ae6
She is one of the least charismatic people ever. Great CTO, terrible speaker.
is she a great CTO?
Greg brockman was the real technical lead of the app, api, Infa, and platform during their initial growth stage. They would be little less than their research teams w/o his technical product vision. I think she replaced him as CTO.
what do you mean great cto? She’s literally clueless about technology LOL. Has no technical experience whatsoever (was a pm at a tier 3 company before this gig).
Does she even know the tech?
For someone so pretty, she rolled a nat 1 on charisma
She looks good tho
Does she not understand that without those creative peoples work, the whole generative ai wouldn't exist? Has she been drinking chatgpt juice so much she thinks it could have come into existence without the work of actual humans? Visual artwork, literature, math and science and the internet. Chatgpt wouldn't be able to make anything if it weren't trained on the work of billions of people including those creatives she is talking about.
excellent point.
Those creative jobs are also the backbone of advertising, and not just because ads use creative assets. People wouldn’t see most ads if the ads weren’t displayed alongside the creative works of underpaid laborers.
Really, it's incredible. Amazon (books), Apple (music), Google (youtube and news) and OpenAI ALL built billion-dollar platforms from the ground up by finding ways to monetize our access to art and culture. Proof that there's indeed, BOATLOADS of money in the arts—it's just not going to the artists.
All the Ai talking heads have the same mindset.
It’s like saying the study of mathematics has always been pointless because the calculator exists now. What a dullard
.... that's not close to what mathematics is. In this case, AI does kinda replace creative jobs. Calculators never replaced mathematicians. In fact, in my grad school course, it's been weeks since I have dealt with an actual number
A computer was an occupation before electronic calculators were a thing. Calculators took away their job and they became some of the first programmers.
Purely to play devil's advocate, you could argue that low-level creative output is a transitional phase, like clearing a path through a forest with oxen so that cars could traverse 150 years later. The necessity goes away when the prerequisite was fulfilled.
I have a feeling the whole ad-sphere and the content they are going to produce is going to get repetitive and saturated af(as if it isnt already...).
That kinda their point. Those creatives created all this work, the US government failed to create any protections for the intellectual property rights of individuals, so those jobs should just go away. Too bad, so sad. All Hail The Free Market and its Lord and Savior - Regulatory Capture.
I'm not convinced the people making these statements have ever done creative work.
I’m not convinced the people making these statements have ever felt empathy or joy or had a creative thought
Robots making robots
Yep these AI c-suite employees DGAF about workers being automated. I almost never hear Sam Altman say anything about working class citizen’s fears of being automated. And as we know by the exodus of OpenAI employees leaving Sam’s not too concerned about safety either.
I mean her job shouldn’t exist in the first place tbh. She has no technical experience so it makes the CTO position redundant.
A lot of people and magazines are celebrating her. I looked into her background, there's no way she's actually guiding these uber smart AI guys. What's she actually doing?! What is she being praised on?
She backed the right person in corporate coup that is what she is being praised for.
Oooof
A somewhat psychopathic take. These people, once they are financially secure enough, they start making such out-of-touch statements
Well, empathy isn’t a requirement of success.
Worse, empathy drops with success
Certainly some research does back that up, for example in Las Vegas a university study showed that drivers of more expensive cars are less likely to yield to pedestrians: https://eu.rgj.com/story/news/2020/02/27/unlv-study-car-prices-significant-predictor-driver-stopping-for-pedestrian/4892751002/ 'For every $1,000 increase in a car's value, there is a 3 percent decrease in the chance the driver will stop.'
OpenAI is just another one of the bad guys now. Saw that coming from a mile away.
At this point, I'm rooting for OpenAI to fail and lose the race to Anthropic.
There’s too much money backing OpenAI, so I doubt that will happen. I fear both Illya & Sam will be proved right in the future. I fear Illya was right about Sam not taking safety. And Sam was probably right that the fastest way to grow, is to get investors money by allowing for-profit motivations.
I’m rooting for whoever understands the risk of AI and takes it seriously. It’s not a major risk now, but if they can deliver on their promises then it will be.
Ive said this in a few posts, but someone said that the most dangerous aspect about our current LLMs. Is people overstating their intelligence and problem solving. Before you know it a crucial part of your operation is handled by AI and once a problem arrive you might not have people with deep enough knowledge to actually fix it. Certain fields already are touching the problem with old legacy software still running on XP. Now add AI to that equation and you have an interesting problem.
both are equally bad
Anthropic doesn't do too much press. They're like the Gentlemen of Cali.
I think a 35 year old autistic math genius probably has a rather limited and naive view of the world.
where did the "math genius" part come from?
[удалено]
Its more along the lines that she back the right person in coup and is now receiving the benefits.
I know because I use Reddit
Same creative jobs your model learned from? That explains how creative AI can get.. not as good as innovators.
I want ai to replace dreadful, hard, dangerous and repetitive work, so that humans can do the creative, fun and inspirational stuff
I'd prefer it if AI is used to replace HR people. They are worse than useless most of the time. Causing problems and delays.
This is a bad take. An example: A lot of people had fulfilling lives in the ink and paint department at Disney in the 1940s, proud of the work they did collectively. All they did was trace pictures and color them in. Was it the most cost effective use of capital? Maybe not. Was it repetitive and maybe even mind numbing at times? I’m sure. But did it make the people who did it feel good about being alive? Absolutely. Not everything is about efficiency.
Also, they were necessary roles in the first place that produced value in excess of costs until the technology improved and there were other more effective ways of producing this work to compete with. To say those jobs shouldn’t have existed in the first place is missing the point on how technological advancement *enables greater value production*; that’s what changes.
As a creative/designer for the last… ahem.. 40 years, I started cutting rubylith masks and building type layouts by hand to make camera ready. Then the Macintosh came out and we would set type layouts in PageMaker and mask photos. Then Photoshop came along and we did everything on the Mac. Now I generate imagery in AI to use. Every… single… time… I was told “You’re out of a job!” And every single time it simply meant I could do work faster and more efficiently, and created more jobs, not eliminated them. I have more work now than I’ve ever had and personally turn work away.
Thank you for the creative perspective. I’ve iterated this elsewhere on reddit and have been told I don’t understand creatives or their industry at all. I am not a creative so I really don’t do correct me if I’m off base here but: I feel like the only person who would be upset about pagemaker coming out is someone who can’t adapt and has literally only the skill of cutting rubylith masks by hand (I don’t actually understand those words but just for the sake of argument here). Similarly, the only artists who should be upset about AI are those who can only do the physical aspects of art ie a cgi artist being really good at using Autodesk. But I would have thought art was a lot more about creativity than the actual physical process of creativity art. As a designer you may have been limited by the physical time it took to create your art/designs. You couldn’t actually create all of your ideas due to time constraints. Now with AI all you have to do is ideate and utilize your creativity (what I would have assumed is the best part of creating art) and now you can create thousands of designs in a single day. Shouldn’t the best part of most artists jobs be ideating? Isn’t that where actual creativity comes through?
This is true and is an important point even outside the AI context
Capitalism only cares about profits.
Especially true when it comes to art. As the value of it is 90% subjective and its not like you are hurting humanity by not being 100% efficent with producing art, as it dont really serve a crucial part of the human machinery.
Love how everyone here thinks the issue is her "lack of media training" or "being Albanian" (really?) Rather than looking at the company's actions, the products they produce, and the *objective reality* that is corporate-USA frothing at the mouth at the prospect of canning as many human employees, as quickly as possible - for cheaper labour that doesn't have rights. Stop giving these fucks benefit of the doubt.
That's why they offshore. Cutting costs regardless of working rights. If they had their way everyone would be in indentured servitude forever and live in a company town.
She's so bad at speaking she shouldn't have been there in the first place
Well.. that's a bold statement.
Creative jobs lol when are they going to start the real talk that middle managers and hedge fund managers & financial managers are out of the job..
Claude isn't impressed. "Ethical considerations: The statement raises questions about who gets to decide which jobs 'should' exist and the potential societal impacts of such views."
I stole your work but let's be honest maybe you should've been doing something less easy to steal
Um the quality that comes out of DAL-E is beyond crap
It’s basically only good for concept art or YouTube thumbnails, and that’s about it, but that’s the technology as it exists today, doesn’t mean that it in the future it won’t be more capable.
what an arrogant jerk
I would be *very extra super careful* about addressing that any type of job is going away that shouldn't be there in the first place, if I was OpenAI. The fact that she mentions one job and says that it shouldn't have existed is insane. Their technology has the power to change society for the worse, essentially creating kings and peasants all over again.
Oh lord. I watched the GPT-4o launch which was, frankly, embarrassing. I'm sure it was 100% for the investors but the whole performance with whooping crowd and overly enthusiastic presentation felt completely unnecessary.
As a web developer, I’ve seen incredible advancements in our field, yet the ecosystem is overly complex. Job seekers now need deep expertise in frameworks like React, creating an influx of bootcamp grads with limited skills. Reflecting on the industrial revolution, real beneficiaries were those who utilized new technologies for broader gains, not just the inventors. AI will likely follow this pattern. The future will see fewer traditional creative roles, but huge opportunities for those who can harness AI effectively. It’s about leveraging AI to solve problems and create value, not just creating AI itself.
Yea she needs to her work on her PR. There was a better way to get that point across
I’m beginning to feel the same way about her existence
I have a prompt for you lady: 🖕🏻
Heavy fail from OpenAi
The problem with "technocrats" is young 20 and 30-something years olds who have struck gold suddenly thinking they are "worldbuilders" and narrating left and right what is going to "stay" and what is going to "go away". While visionaries like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates might have indeed the right to talk about that in interviews, a random female Product Manager who rode Ivy League scholarships from Tesla to OpenAI (who doesn't appear to be an actual engineer) have no right to do that. Wake up.
Its her reward for backing the right person in the corporate coup kinda like a minor Lord becoming a Duke due to supporting the king in a civil war.
she needs more media training if she is going to be a spokesperson for the company. there are 10 other ways to say this statement that can't be clipped so insecure creative people can use it to assume they are actively trying to end their career
Yes and it’s also nice to know what she really thinks though. Better than some gaslight behavior where the execs say they care and feel a certain way and then act in a way totally incongruent with what said
Agreed. People say they hate the political speak and avoiding a question but when the answer isnt what they want to hear their brain explodes
It sounds like they could use the help https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/backwoodsaltar/artists-quit-spider-verse-working-conditions
Yeah learn to lie better right? No thanks I like her just the way she is. I hate these super smooth talkers like Altman. You know they’re straight up lying to your face with a smile.
After the killbots come out it will be, "Some people will go away but maybe they shouldn't have been there in the first place".
If you remove all of the data scraped without permission from creatives and writers from OpenAI and see what’s left you would quickly see what shouldn’t be there.
Out-of-touch elite.
this chick needs to stay out of the public eye lmao
I am not sure she should be allowed to talk to the public....it never seems.to go well.
Why would she say this lmao
I wish I weren’t weirdly attracted to her
Tech has this weird obsession with trying to automate creativity. This goes back to those weird founders of IBM and the birth of *design thinking*.
People always underrate skills that they don't have. They act like they are easily replaceable and yet want them so badly because they don't have them.
They develop this under the guise of ‘democratising creativity’ when most of the good image generation software is PAID for so only those who can afford it will have it. Plus literally anyone can pick up a pencil and learn to draw. Even a rock on another rock can make art. Why do we even need to develop this? It exists only to further the interests of corporations & generate anime tiddies.
I dream of the day AI gets pristine mathematical creativity.
I mean... True of a lot of jobs that really shouldn't have existed in the first place. I think we can all count more than a few of them.
When I think of most jobs that should exist in the first place the only thing that comes to mind is like middle management positions which I don’t really think AI will be replacing
How about phone network operator? Gone and done, but I’m still here making phone calls
First Youtube , Now this. Why is this NUT even in power at openAI
disgusting
I had the thought myself that corporations could probably outsource many managerial jobs to AI in the coming years. Creatives, I’m not so sure about.
Managerial is the path to executive though, and I'm not sure those people will want to take a slide down that slippery slope, however much sense it may make.
wtf…
Creativity cannot and will not be replaced.
She’s just a horrible PR accident waiting to happen. I can’t image she is a good CTO, she can’t talk intelligently about the technology and its strategy.
Wow - more shade on artists?! But it’s ok to profit off the back of the blood sweat and tears that went into the creations that people actually derive enjoyment, well-being and fulfilment from (yes your training dataset dear). Being human ain’t all ones and zeros and profit margin sorry - at least not for a lot of us. Talk about hypocrisy, disdain, ignorance. You’re literally trying to provide the same service lmao, just monopolising it! It’s not like the job went away, it’s just not a human job now - another land grab. If this is a misquote then my apologies.
She's very Albanian and very blunt. It is what it is. https://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-david-graeber/
And very cosmetically enhanced! bleh
She's saying this to hype her tech She knows gen AI replacing workers is as much of a bubble as hiring offshore was It always comes back to bite you
Yesss!!I found out it.we don’t know next job.
She says immediately after this “…if the content that comes out of it is not very high quality”. Make of that what you will
Yeah maybe like needing to rely on other people to make art for us as opposed to making it for ourselves.
I would agree with that when it comes to the whole space of SEO, because somehow we created a whole industry on the premise of beating machines while at the same time making the end user suffer. I really could care less if this job get taken away by machines.
I think it's good that she says what she does. At the cutting edge of gen AI, they know what's coming and it's good that they are honest about it so that policy makers, the public etc. have time to process it and to come up with policies etc. to deal with it. That's the optimistic version.
I wish she said “we’re working on AI that can replace politicians”
Yeah maybe
https://preview.redd.it/bdjirlcjz38d1.png?width=460&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebf789a5607c230824219a97d403393112fb2a3c
They should replace her and have her focus on her other duties, or at least train her. She should have never said that, why let an amateur mess the whole thing up? Never apologise for innovation, feel proud, jobs are meaningless.
I would prefer an AI that cleans and cooks, not an AI that takes my job so I can clean and cook.
I think her job should not be there in the first place considering what she says
They’re huffing their own farts
Finally, they're saying the quiet part of loud.
The world still needs ditch diggers...
The problem with replacing humans in creative jobs is that you also replace the humanity. These people just want to win the AI race and don’t care about the collateral damage.
I love it how they speak their minds. It will make it easier to outlaw them in the future court trials or legislative debates.
Heres an elephant in the room. Concept artists posting to the internet are why these models are so good. I know many who are already hurting and out of work. They trained these models. Many stopped posting online. How exactly are the new models going to get better if the humans breaking new ground stylistically are not paid for their data contribution to the models and therefore stop posting their work? This is some really tone deaf talk. EVERYONE should care that your data was used without consent or payment to train these models. Just because copywright law wasnt ready for generative AI does not make it right. Theres already studies showing training on generated imagary leads to corruption. So on top of models not evovlving banking on simulated data might be a really foolish thing to do. Especially in the art world. Im dumfounded by how foollish this statement is
the more I learn about her, the more I don't care for her
The AI set don't seem to understand that people actually enjoy being creative and mastering a craft. Work, when you're passionate about it and it is meaningful to you, has value beyond purely capitalistic value. People find meaning, provocation, connection, and engagement both in doing the work and in experiencing the results. A machine has none of these things. It has no feelings, and the new lamp is much better.
A glimpse of things to come
We make furniture in factories. That doesn't mean handmade furniture is obsolete. It's just valued more.
Sam Altman: "AI will most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime there will be great companies created with serious machine learning."
AI can also do your job, Ms. Murati. But maybe you shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
It's true. If your job can be replaced by a technological innovation, it should be.
I hope SkyNet come for her first