Poorly maintained sewers can have disastrous consequences, but regular inspections can be time-consuming, expensive, and dangerous. The solution: subterranean dung drones.
So now all Lemmy is on board with this AI. Why is acceptable for technology to take the jobs of plumbers (usually poorer) but it’s evil for it to take the job of ‘artists’ (usually rich)???
I’m on board w/ both honestly, as unpopular as that may sound. If a job can be automated, it should.
I want to point out that an AI being able to do a job doesn’t mean that job is now obsolete for humans. There will always be room for that human touch, which is why things like kit cars and hand-carved statues are still a thing in an era of automated car factories and 3D printers.
I’ve been getting into chess recently, and the best chess AIs can consistently beat top humans, yet there are still tournaments for human competitors to compete against each other. The human touch will always have value.
I think Lemmy is just scared of change. To be fair, so am I, but as long as I learn to adapt, I should get net benefits from technological advancements.
In which world they aren’t? Like if you have the option of working throwing paint onto a pice of cloth or taping bananas to walls would you chose to work with literal human shit to your knees and your elbows??
Also see my other comment, only 8% of artist (in the UK) are working class against A FUCKING 100% plumbers being working class.
I’d believe it if up to 0.6% of artists made millions off a single low effort ‘artwork’. What is even being considered an artist here? Paint? Movie/Game? Strictly one-off millionaires? What is working class here too? Working at all or within a specific income range?
I worked industrial steel up until I got injured and in the early apprenticeship phase plumbers I knew that were working about as long as I had were making more than me, but we were all well above grocery store clerk earnings.
Generative ai is also machine learning, and you could say that the ai is generating movements and actions for the drone. My question, that was not about the underlying technology or semantics, still stands.
English is not my first language and I’m no expert in sewers maintenance so substitute whatever trade/job title instead of plumber.
I’m not against this robot quite the opposite. But I’m curious about the reaction when technology ‘takes the jobs’ of working class people like in this case (or you know last couple centuries) being very different than when it takes the job of artists, journalists, writers…
Not trolling at all. I used to hang around an art school when I was a teenager, the vast majority of those kids came from pretty well off families. The small percentage that were of a more working class background were there to get into graphic design or the-like in college, so they didn’t end up being artists.
A quick web search gives that only 8% of artists are working class in the UK which is a wealthy country, I’d bet the percentage goes down in poorer ones.
So your assumption is that “lots of people are rich from making art”, and not “many people trying to do art professionally have that opportunity due to their generational wealth”?
Their wealth comes from the well off families, then secondarily from the art that sells well due to the artist (through their parents) being well connected to other rich people through the school that mostly filters in favor of rich people.
So now all Lemmy is on board with this AI. Why is acceptable for technology to take the jobs of plumbers (usually poorer) but it’s evil for it to take the job of ‘artists’ (usually rich)???
I’m on board w/ both honestly, as unpopular as that may sound. If a job can be automated, it should.
I want to point out that an AI being able to do a job doesn’t mean that job is now obsolete for humans. There will always be room for that human touch, which is why things like kit cars and hand-carved statues are still a thing in an era of automated car factories and 3D printers.
I’ve been getting into chess recently, and the best chess AIs can consistently beat top humans, yet there are still tournaments for human competitors to compete against each other. The human touch will always have value.
I think Lemmy is just scared of change. To be fair, so am I, but as long as I learn to adapt, I should get net benefits from technological advancements.
in what world is a plumber poorer than an artist
In which world they aren’t? Like if you have the option of working throwing paint onto a pice of cloth or taping bananas to walls would you chose to work with literal human shit to your knees and your elbows??
Also see my other comment, only 8% of artist (in the UK) are working class against A FUCKING 100% plumbers being working class.
I’d believe it if up to 0.6% of artists made millions off a single low effort ‘artwork’. What is even being considered an artist here? Paint? Movie/Game? Strictly one-off millionaires? What is working class here too? Working at all or within a specific income range?
I worked industrial steel up until I got injured and in the early apprenticeship phase plumbers I knew that were working about as long as I had were making more than me, but we were all well above grocery store clerk earnings.
This is not generative AI. It is machine learning- which has been around for aaages.
Generative ai is also machine learning, and you could say that the ai is generating movements and actions for the drone. My question, that was not about the underlying technology or semantics, still stands.
Legitimately- what’s the difference, in your mind?
I don’t think jobs this hazardous are generally done by plumbers. Sending in a robot instead of a human makes sense.
Especially when the robot is better at finding faults before people’s homes collapse into a sinkhole.
English is not my first language and I’m no expert in sewers maintenance so substitute whatever trade/job title instead of plumber.
I’m not against this robot quite the opposite. But I’m curious about the reaction when technology ‘takes the jobs’ of working class people like in this case (or you know last couple centuries) being very different than when it takes the job of artists, journalists, writers…
I
knowthink you’re trolling, but…Not trolling at all. I used to hang around an art school when I was a teenager, the vast majority of those kids came from pretty well off families. The small percentage that were of a more working class background were there to get into graphic design or the-like in college, so they didn’t end up being artists.
A quick web search gives that only 8% of artists are working class in the UK which is a wealthy country, I’d bet the percentage goes down in poorer ones.
So your assumption is that “lots of people are rich from making art”, and not “many people trying to do art professionally have that opportunity due to their generational wealth”?
No, that’s not my assumption. Where did I say that? Rich people are mostly born, not made.
Their wealth comes from the well off families, then secondarily from the art that sells well due to the artist (through their parents) being well connected to other rich people through the school that mostly filters in favor of rich people.