is AI gonna take our jobs?

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

"LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
- Robert McNamara in the excellent documentary "The fog of war"

He was talking about this in the context of the US incendiary campaign against Japan in WW2. The US had worked out that the wooden structures most Japanese civilians lived in would be prone to an incendiary bombing campaign. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were killed.

"Over several hours, U.S. Army Air Forces warplanes destroyed the shitamachi, or the low-lying section of Tokyo, and killed an estimated 100,000 Japanese citizens in a firestorm. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey later wrote that probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a six-hour period than at any time in the history of man."

That was the first raid targeting civilian populations. Much more devastating numerically than the later atomic blasts and not much discussed.

"Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve."
- Robert McNamara

"The original idea of the Geneva Convention is that civilian targets were out, and it was military targets that should be used. In Europe, you had the Russians and the Germans especially the Nazis bombing civilians. When we did the firebombings, we were killing civilians."
- Ed Lawson, Technical Sergeant, 882nd Bomb Squadron, 500th Bomb Group.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/m...ing-japan.html
 
Last edited:
Everything is relative. Taking events out of context is a time tested tradition of communication platforms. The bombing of civilians presented in the above post is horrible and if one only read that post outrage would follow. In context, the bombing of civilians is the only thing that eventually effected the leaders of the Axis of Evil in WWII. It was a measure of later/last resort to end the conflict which saved lives. Tough concept to grapple with.

As far as AI and context - imho, this is all just entertainment. Do we "need" anything of this stuff right now? I would say no. It is just convenient and creates profit for some. Will AI change the workforce? Probably given the headfirst dive corporate America is taking into development and hardware. In the end, we will endure and the whole thing might be like 3D movies. Or take over the planet and we will all be Duracells like in The Matrix.
 
Everything is relative. Taking events out of context is a time tested tradition of communication platforms. The bombing of civilians presented in the above post is horrible and if one only read that post outrage would follow. In context, the bombing of civilians is the only thing that eventually effected the leaders of the Axis of Evil in WWII. It was a measure of later/last resort to end the conflict which saved lives. Tough concept to grapple with.


Actually for me, it's that a perpetrator (Robert McNamara) is saying, if you win, it's not a war crime.

You're saying the same thing about a means and the end justified.
 
In reality, it is a lesser war crime. But what would be the other choice? Lose the war to aggressors? Or have the world war drag on and on and on... From this vantage point it is too convenient to judge imho.
 
In reality, it is a lesser war crime. But what would be the other choice? Lose the war to aggressors? Or have the world war drag on and on and on... From this vantage point it is too convenient to judge imho.

The reason the moral comparison is worth raising IMO is because people like to say "They're the bad guys and we're the good guys." (I have to laugh when people tell me I'm naive to trust our electoral process, vaccination requirements, and unemployment/inflation numbers but then tell me that we spend $1T/year on our military to make the world a safer place because we care about our fellow man.)

There are some concrete moral distinctions, such as the mass murder perpetrated by Hitler or Stalin. The US hasn't exactly done that. (Although we have killed a lot of people in various places and there used to be thriving civilizations in North America before we arrived.) But when it comes to Putin invading Ukraine, it's not necessarily a worse crime than the US invading Iraq. The distinction to be made is that Putin is trying to conquer Ukraine and incorporate it into his own country. (But then, the architects of the Iraq war planned to institute free market capitalism there that would have been a boon to American corporations. Six of one, half a dozen of another. And the current government in Ukraine is practically a hired servant of the US anyway.)

(I think it's much better to be a citizen of the US than a citizen of Russia because of our civil liberties and less corrupt society. I'm just talking about matters of war.)

Mostly, I think that international conflicts devolve into team sports. You root for your own team. And you're always serving your own material interests, but when you happen by coincidence to be doing a just action anyway, you trumpet the justness of your cause.

I'll quote the immortal words of Major General Smedley Butler (1881-1940), an American general who advocated peace late in his life. (Incidentally, I struck out several times on Google trying to locate his quote based on my patchy memory of his name, rank, and what he said. But ChatGPT helped me find it on the first try.)

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/253269-i-spent-33-years-and-four-months-in-active-military
 
Maybe change the name to searchPDQ :) I see what you are saying and these things are subjective no doubt. Major world events are complex and best not armchair quaterback'd many years later imho. It is tough to document all of feelings and fears of the moment.
 
FWIW, air force anti-civilian raids - whether Dresden or Tokyo - were terrible for the military purposes.. Even worse after the war was bringing in the Soviets into places like Nürnberg, which created two different and both easily disabled legal and political justifications of competing military conducts in subsequent decades, from the Soviets, the Nazis, the British, the Americans, and the Japanese.
 
A translation client last year told me they wouldn’t be needing my services anymore, as they would be using chatgpt for translation going forward.

Three months later they wrote me back to ask about my rates for « correcting AI output ».

So that’s where we are…
https://twitter.com/MembraneAcid/status/1747120268668186787?t=Qzzmm-BMQEWdURQhAjbJFg&s=19

one response:

Well, first you'll have to translate the original, and THEN correct the AI version. So, 1.75 times the normal translation rate seems fair...
 
Yep. I do not think this will ever go away with AI. It will always need to be inspected to some extent. But to be fair, so does human work.
 
Despite how advanced fast food and microwavable food is, did it take away the natural fresh food industry where it uses fresh tomatoes, fruit, meats, and vegetables?

With photography and videography you have a natural sort of image that AI can not take away. People are using the news more often and they need that natural image more often and AI can not provide that.

Now the argument that is smartphones replacing most of video cameras now, now that is a real competition to filmmaking, but AI it's like comparing a TV dinner to a Tomahawk steak meal made by Gordon Ramsay. There is just something really natural about how light forms on a camera that can hardly be replicated by AI.

I can say the same argument about programmers because people say AI will replace programming, but like how in the movie Watchmen who watches the Watchmen, who checks and programs the AI programmer?

Cameras having easy to access auto modes when filmmaking is the real challenge to the film industry more so than AI. These auto focus modes I see on cameras can easily replace the job of a focus puller and take down the team of a camera down from 20 to 5.

Now a days the film industry due to the advancements of say the smartphone and automatic modes, people are now more concerned with the cameraman to talent relationship than with someone who knows the camera front to back.

Besides that for these TV news stations from CNN and Fox, no AI is able to replicate the natural image of what goes on in the Middle East, Ukraine, Syria, India, and some parts of Africa.
 
Last edited:
"By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet."
John Connor
 
Disclaimer: I haven't read the 13 pages of this thread but my experience with ChatGPT is that it makes so many mistakes that it's highly untrustworthy. It apologizes for its mistakes when pointed out in a human-like manner, but if it can confirm its mistakes when I spot them and correct itself, why can't it just perform the due diligence to report the correct answer in the first place? It's very cool if you need it to write computer code for you, loved that, and was really good with refreshing my math skills in calculus, differential equations, integrals, derivatives, quantitative methods, statistics, transfer functions, chemistry, physics, Einstein's general relativity, quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, dark matter, black holes and questions of the universe but very bad with health and biology.
 
Have you seen the new AI generated video? It's good, and it's just the beginning...


https://arstechnica.com/information...ith-sora-a-photorealistic-ai-video-generator/




I predict that there will be a fully AI-generated TV show within the next year. If it's successful (which is likely since it will cost practically nothing to make) then I expect the rest of Hollywood to follow suit. It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of TV shows and movies will be AI-generated by 2030.

So the writing is on the wall...
 
Thanks for sharing. It is impressive but I can't help but think the worst because the tech companies are not going to put enough guardrails in place. My first thought is - Is there any way a small business like myself can offer services around this technology to stay in the mix? Basically, your company offers finished video products but the creation involves your expertise with the Open AI platform instead of operating cameras etc.... It would totally compete on price which might be driven so low that it is not worth the effort to find new clients. But I do not think it will be as plug n play as advertised for organizations. Things still need to be directed towards a message or purpose.
 
What kind of message or purpose do you think AI couldn't handle? (j/w and trying to think against it)

One thing that's still unbelievable to me is ad revenue.

I don't understand how this system continues to work so well but apparently humans continue watching and buying, consciously and/or subconsciously.

And that's where AI will succeed endlessly; all businesses will find ways to use its powerful automation and speed (along with the unlimited creativity).

___

In your case, Bassman, work like HS/college sports are a niche and would only be affected by this when it's paired with camera operating hardware that works really well. As you likely know, some places already experiment with automated panning & high-resolution cameras but it's not there yet...but once they get really good at tracking the ball and understanding the game the AI software could then edit the footage as if it were shot by a human (naturally following the action, slow zooms here and there, hero shots, etc) and upload it somewhere like Hudl by the time you finish packing up and getting in your car.

At that point - and if it's good enough - you do not need manual human labor up in the press box or on scaffolding.
 
I'm bearish on the prospects of generative AI because if you look underneath the hood you realize that it's not actually generating anything. it's taking other people's work and tweaking it. this shouldn't come as a surprise when you consider the way it creates an image out of a noise pattern....where do you think it got that noise pattern from? when you look at an AI-generated shot of puppies playing in the snow, there is probably something similar in its databank that it is regurgitating. so basically, the direction this industry will take hinges on copyright enforcement. if what OpenAI is doing is permitted, it will displace a lot of production. if it's not, then it won't.

on plagiarism: https://spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-copyright

a different take, discussing the importance of (essentially) celebrity: https://noamkroll.com/what-sora-ai-video-means-for-indie-filmmakers/
 
but why wouldn't AI be allowed to do it when humans take other people's work and tweak it as well (enough to that fine line where it's allowed)
 
but why wouldn't AI be allowed to do it when humans take other people's work and tweak it as well (enough to that fine line where it's allowed)

two possible issues here - first and foremost is the issue that the machine currently has no process in place to warn you if its output is infringing copyright. I'm not sure if they can even do that, for a variety of reasons such as does the machine know what is copyrighted in its database and does the machine know if its output is similar enough to infringe on that right. And of course the companies wouldn't want to be transparent about the relevant information because it will reveal how unoriginal the AI can be.

the second issue which is thornier is that maybe when the machine copies but alters other people's work, it's closer to a mechanical duplication process. for example, if I take a jpeg of a screenshot of iron man and bring it into photoshop and play around with it...I'm definitely starting with their material. (which I would say is similar to what the AI is doing.) whereas if I make a drawing from scratch of a man in a robotic suit that is inspired by memories of seeing iron man... well, for one thing, I'm more likely to diverge from iron man. and for another, if they sue me I can tout my process. I don't know if this consideration is important. it's for a judge to decide.
 
Back
Top