>


So yeah, the real problem as per my understanding isn't the existence of these tools, but the existence of people who write code, make essays, or generate art, and then spend a few minutes editing to make it look more human-like, and act as if they made it on their own when the actual work would take hours or even days.

How is this a problem?
/u/A-Delonix-Regia (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The title of your view suggests that you AI would deter actual work. But then in the body of your view you state

[They] act as if they made it on their own when the actual work would take hours or even days.

If the end result is what the programmer, artist - whatever - desired, is that not actual work regardless of who or what did the work? For example, if a software engineer ends up with a working application exactly as they intended, then actual work has been done, and likely more quickly. It’s not skirting actual work, it’s using tools to work more efficiently.
However, there is the issue of authorship. Would it be sufficient to have a disclaimer stating that AI was used in the work? Maybe even list exactly what and where the AI did and what and where the human did? >

My biggest concern with these sorts of things is that students aren't learning how to solve problems anymore. These AIs are still designed by humans and have bias and fallibility. 
If students themselves don't learn the why and how, they're not going to recognize errors.
We already see this in engineering with Chegg. Students use it for homework and then kften struggle on tests. They haven't practiced working through problems.
In the real world in engineering you don't usually have a set problem with set inputs. You have to figure those out. Then you pick how to analyze that and whether the results make sense. 
If students become reliant on tools to do all of the actual problem solving,  it could lead to unintended consequences. It's why universities are so stringent about using calculators on exams and why you show your work. There are plenty of programs out there that can do all that for you, but you need to know they why and how to be effective and understanding and interpreting the results. 
If AI does everything, PE stamps become meaningless. Who's held to account when the bridge falls down? >

That’s not a problem with AI though. It’s a problem with academic dishonesty. There’s nothing preventing students from appropriately learning the material. >

Disagree. When grades are your end goal and your career is dictated by what job you're able to get and what salary, you're going to be motivated to keep those grades as high as possible.
If the single motivating factor was learning the material then you'd do that. But we reward right or wrong answers with a grade. If you were rewarded the same for struggling through the problem and getting the wrong answer people would be less likely to cheat. >

There might be a different type of a problem altogether.  When technology advances such that people can theoretically become much more productive, then this type of enhanced productivity will become more of the norm and would be expected of everyone.   So people might be expected to put forth 1 weeks of today's research/analysis/writing in couple of hours in the future with these new technology.  And it will be difficult for some people to adjust to this type of super productivity that is expected of everyone.  Instead of your boss wanting you to make a power point presentation file by end of the week, you might be expected to deliever 100 power point slides by couple of hours according to different styles.  And some of the super hard and smart workers will have 10-20 parallel AI's running doing different things at once, making everyone else look inefficient by comparison so people would have to adjust accordingly.  It is exhausting thinking about how busy people would need to multi-task with these tools. >

Reading your edited title, I’m still confused what the problem is.  What is the value of “actual work” that is lost by someone using ChatGPT instead?   People don’t get paid for the effort they put into something, they get paid for the output.
The main bad situation that I can envision is if someone who is paid by the hour for something lies about how long it took them to produce the output because they used AI but billed for a pre-AI human level of effort.   But that’s just fraud, not a problem of AI doing the work. >


Reading your edited title, I’m still confused what the problem is.  What is the value of “actual work” that is lost by someone using ChatGPT instead? People don’t get paid for the effort they put into something, they get paid for the output.

Technically, some artists do get paid by the hour, but only if they charge by the hour (but of course they can overestimate their work time and get more money).

The main bad situation that I can envision is if someone who is paid by the hour for something lies about how long it took them to produce the output because they used AI but billed for a pre-AI human level of effort.   But that’s just fraud, not a problem of AI doing the work.

Exactly. My arguments are:

Using AI to completely skip doing work will mean that you use your own skills less often (but that loss of skill is gonna affect only those who use AI, not those who don't use it). Plus, using AI text generators in learning/assignments completely misses the whole point of learning and counts as academic dishonesty, when people use those to write essays or answer problems
People can lie about whether they made their content or AI did, and until there is a fool-proof way to identify AI output, it will be hard to prove fraud, which you mentioned. >

But none of that is a problem with AI, that’s just people lying.
When you take your car into the shop, how do you know the shop isn’t using some new tool to speed up the repair but charging you for the same amount of labor that it used to take?   You have no idea, but people aren’t wringing their hands that a better socket wrench detracts from the “actual work.”   They just want their car repaired.
Part of the moral panic here, which is reflected in your comment, is that people come out of school with the wrong lessons about work.   Doing the work itself in school is important because the whole point is to learn, not the actual end product.    But people mistake the effort itself as the valuable part and then apply that to the professional world.   
The student who uses ChatGPT to cheat on assignments isn’t that different from every student who’s cheated on an assignment ever.   It absolutely counts as academic dishonesty, but that’s a problem with students who chose to be academically dishonest, not a problem with the existence of AI.
To your other examples, overcharging and passing off other people’s shitty work as your own is already endemic to the sorts of markets where AI is most likely to replace human labor.   It’s not a HUGE step change.   If you didn’t think it was worth spending much time worrying about freelance writers subcontracting to some dude in India, which has been a thing for decades, it’s probably not worth worrying about someone using ChatGPT to write content.    
On the other hand, there are plenty of times when it’s not that important to “use your own skills.”   When was the last time you did long division?   Did you ever worry your skills were atrophying vs someone who did it by hand?  Or do you just use the calculator? >


But none of that is a problem with AI, that’s just people lying

The problem is that it makes it easier to do all of that in art, academics, and coding (at least those are the three places where I know it is being misused). And on top of that, AI has the potential to drastically simplify it more than pretty much every other innovation. You don't see any new tech reducing car repair times by a factor of 10. But AI can reduce art creation durations by that much. >

You're still not explaining how doing all of these things a lot quicker than before is a bad thing. >

The comment I am replying to said:

But none of that is a problem with AI, that’s just people lying

I said:

The problem is that it makes it easier to do all of that in art, academics, and coding (at least those are the three places where I know it is being misused).

Why should it be easier for people to lie? Or did you mean "how doing all of these things a lot quicker than before is a bad thing"? I've already agreed that I was wrong when other people pointed out what I was not thinking about, and given deltas. >

Something that you're not considering is that the baseline of doing that work will change now that we have better tools.
Let's say that your mechanic charges you by the hour. If you ask him to replace a light, and he tells you that it will take 2 months of work, you will probably ask why. After all, most people wouldn't take more than a couple hours' work for the same output.
Well, it turns out that this guy will spend the first month crafting a super nice handmade screwdriver, then he will use that screwdriver once, made especially for your car, and then he'll throw it away. 
He'll spend another month crafting a nice lightbulb, especially tailored for your car.
The fact that he's crafting the tools and the items to repair your car himself does not make his work inherently better than the other guy who will just buy a normal lightbulb and replace it, does it? >

They are a replacement for doing actual work, in the sense that they eat up a chunk of the work to be done by a professional. Sure, no one's work can be entirely done by unattended AI right now, but the workloads of professionals can be trimmed substantially, which means that every human worker can take on more projects. 'More output per human' can balance out as 'more output generated' or 'less humans needed', or more likely a combination of both.

So yeah, the real problem as per my understanding isn't the existence of
 these tools, but the existence of people who write code, make essays, 
or generate art, and then spend a few minutes editing to make it look 
more human-like, and act as if they made it on their own when the actual
 work would take hours or even days.

When speaking about marketable work, particularly if you are employed by someone else, your methods don't matter. We need something in place, and we need no trouble from it, so as long as you install a piece of work there that works and does not breach copyright or any other law or regulation, noone cares if you carefully carved it out from a single piece of marble. >

This still doesn't really seem to be the case for writing. I've been playing around extensively with Chat-GPT.  I think for instance if I was writing a five page essay on some random topic for a school class. I would probably spend as much time getting Chat-GPT to give quality output (This involves quite a bit of feedback and asking it to redo things) as I would to just write it myself.
But there are two caveats to that. I'm a pretty fast typist and writer. I can generate quality output pretty quickly. And, secondly, I can generate quality output so I expect quality output to replace it.  If I were still a college student, and I just wanted a paper that could get me a D or maybe even a C minus, well You can get that out of chat GPT pretty much instantly. If you're the type of person who says good enough is good enough, then it's going to be much quicker than anything you could do yourself no matter how fast you are. >

I agree with what you said, but it doesn't apply to the case I was laying out precisely because homework is not marketable work. The goal of assigning you an essay is not to add that essay to the literary body, but that you go through the process of writing the essay to understand its subject better in the process. In homework, the creation process IS the value, whereas in work, the product is the value. >

Yes. I understand the value is in the process. But what I'm saying is that that value is also replaced.
For instance, writing essay helps you learn researching skills. So, because you need those researching skills, you write essays.
But, if the AI can write the essay for you, why do you need the researching skills? The AI becomes your personal researcher. Once, of course, we get to the point where they are reliable in terms of their ability to accurately summarize information and discern misinformation themselves. They won't be good essay writers until they can manage that. So when they're ready to replace humans for reading essays they'll also be ready to replace humans as researchers. At that point, Why do I need to know outmoded ways of researching when the AI itself is the primary way people will do research? Asking it to write the essay becomes the entire researching process and that's all people will eventually need to know how to do?
It doesn't just replace this one skill, it replaces all the skills that learning this skill required you to learn. >

I think the flaw in your argument is in the beginning:

For instance, writing essay helps you learn researching skills. So, because you need those researching skills, you write essays.

I don't see essays as a way to practice research (if that was the case, Wikipedia copypasting would be encouraged, not forbidden). Essays are a way to cultivate communication skills. If you have an idea and you can accurately and precisely put it into words, you can advance the body of knowledge of a given field. The idea of say, an essay about war X is not to verify that you can go online and copypaste a bunch of sources about War X into an unified document, but that you read those sources and write down what you understand about what you read.
You make an eloquent comment, but I don't see where I cannot replace 'AI' with 'big bro'. I have a big bro who can do my homework, why do I need the homeworking skills?
Answer is: you don't. You don't need researching skills, you need 'understanding and redacting a document that transmits your findings' skills.
You can think of it as the gym: the benefits of lifting a bar over your head are not that the bar is now higher or that you are now able to go around the world lifting bars, but that you change by doing it in a way that benefits you, and this change would not be accomplished by using a forklift to lift that bar. >


You can think of it as the gym

Sure. But in that case the analogy is more like a pill that lets you grow muscles just by taking the pill. Completely eliminating the point of going to the gym. At that point, you can't argue with that people are somehow cheating themselves because they're not going through the process. There would be lots of moral panic too about that. People would be saying oh no people won't learn how to do a push-up. But who cares? If nobody ever does a push-up again it won't hurt anything because in that world that's no longer a necessary thing to know how to do. >

That analogy would apply if prompting ChatGPT for an essay gave you the ability to enunciate your thoughts and ideas on written form. A more accurate analogy would be 'but bro what do I need muscles for if I have a machine that lifts for me'. >

No because essays aren't the muscles they're the weights.  The muscles are the skills to research make an essay and ability to write.  Once technology mitigates the need for either of those skills, then we don't need the skill that trains them either.  
Basically, once we all have telekinesis why do we need muscles?  We can just lift shit with our brain. >

What I have an issue with is that AI will mitigate the need to be able to express a thought. Again, my big bro can write my essay, he mitigates my need to research.
Also we are discussing the lame and mediocre form of research. How about scientific research? Running experiments, testing hypotheses and writing down your findings. Or what about philosophical texts? These cases are extending the body of knowledge, not pulling from it, so an AI model cannot produce what you need.
And I'm going further down in my case against it, since even if you would say 'what is the point on gaining this skill when I have this tool that does it for me?' and try to pass it as if it was the next calculator, there is a very important distinction that is easy to ignore, that makes ChatGPT more akin to having a butler that does your work: you don't have ChatGPT. Unlike graphic generation or voice generation models which source is released and replicable, GPT4 is massive and its source, and datasets, are not available to the public (and even if they were, the computing power and storage needed to run them are way beyond the reach of individual users). You cannot have a ChatGPT, you can only have access to the instance OpenAI are running for as long as they want, in the manner they want, and with the modifications they unilaterally put in place. You are basically making a case for delegating your brain function to an external corporation. So yes, you are not doing your homework because you can pay an external company to use their machine to produce a sub-par text that passes as your homework.
By the way, your first paragraph is agreeing with what I said before but for some reason you phrase it as being against it. Maybe you want to read again. >


How about scientific research?

That's a totally different beast than the type of research that goes into making an essay.  One is conducting original research and the other is simply summarizing the research done by others.  I don't think the former skill set actually builds on the latter in any way. 

very important distinction that is easy to ignore, that makes ChatGPT more akin to having a butler that does your work: you don't have ChatGPT.

I should point out that I'm not talking about chat GPT here. I am arguing about AI in a generalized sense. Chat GPT is not to the point where it can replace your ability to perform research. The essays that it generates can summarize topics very well, and could substitute for research, but only if the data within them was highly reliable. At this point it's only sort of reliable which is simply not good enough.
I'm not arguing that Chat-GPT is good enough, but this is not AI's final form. It will reach a point where it is ubiquitous and better than you and I.  It will reach a point where it will simply be as good as what any of us with seasoned researching skills and essay writing skills can perform, and even all of us will ultimately simply use it instead of doing the work ourselves because why not?
I'm suggesting that we will someday inhabit a world where nobody needs to know how to perform the type of research that goes into making an essay. Or, more accurately, AI tools will ultimately become the way that sort of research is done universally. So literally everyone will know how to do it.

By the way, your first paragraph is agreeing with what I said before but for some reason you phrase it as being against it. Maybe you want to read again.

I did, and I can't see what you mean. You proposed an analogy you think is more apt and I I offered a totally different one that I think is a better fit. I don't see how that's agreement. >

Why can't you say the same about any tool? E.g. would you view someone the same way if they used Python and NumPY, instead of coding it by hand in assembly? >

Well, now I no longer have the opinion that I shared in the title.
But, if I were to speak from that perspective and using the knowledge I had at that time, I would have said that even with Python and NumPy, you have to put the parts together to make the product, but with AI, the computer does everything after you tell it what exactly to do.
And nope, I do not agree with what I said just now. >

If anyone is curious, I fed this into ChatGPT:
"The real problem with Al art generators and chatbots like ChatGPT is the fact that they can be easily misused as a replacement for doing actual work instead of a tool to make better work possible by office employees, students, and artists, not the fact that those tools exist." 
Me: Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why? Give a detailed response that aligns with your decision. 
Bot: I agree with this statement. While language models like ChatGPT and AI art generators have the potential to greatly assist in creating and completing tasks, they should not be used as a replacement for human effort and creativity. Instead, they should be utilized as tools to enhance and improve upon the work that is done by office employees, students, and artists.
AI art generators, for example, can be used to generate ideas and inspiration for artists, but they should not be used to create finished pieces without human input. Similarly, language models like ChatGPT can assist in writing and research tasks, but they should not be used to replace the critical thinking and analysis that is required to complete those tasks effectively.
Furthermore, the misuse of these tools can lead to a lack of accountability and responsibility for the work being produced, as well as a lack of understanding of the underlying processes and techniques being used. This can ultimately lead to a decrease in the quality of the work produced and a lack of personal growth and development for those using the tools.
In summary, while AI-based tools like ChatGPT and AI art generators have great potential to improve work, it is important to use them as tools rather than replacements for human effort and creativity. Misuse of these tools can lead to a decrease in the quality of work produced and a lack of personal growth and development for those using the tools. >

The main arguments here in this comment are lack of responsibility (refuted by the fact that people will lie if they can and its their fault, not the AI's fault), and lack of personal growth/development (only affects the user, so it's not the AI's fault that its users are willing to use it). >

I have been using it to grow. It's like having a multidisciplinary team of professors that are open to engaging in conversation at a moments notice. One way it has helped me has been revisting some math concepts I always had trouble fully understanding. The way it can respond to nuanced questions really makes it powerful for education, especially in hard sciences. >

Yeah, I guess it can even actually promote growth, if you ask it to teach you. Unfortunately, many people will just ask it to give output and won't give two hoots about letting it help you grow by teaching you. >

Why is it a problem if people don't do actual work,if the result is good?
Like isn't that what all computer programs do?
Microsoft Excel can add up all your numbers and calculate percentages and draw a diagram.
How is that worse than adding everything up by hand and then drawing a diagram with pencil and paper?
Unnecessary work is not a good thing. >

I edited the post to add the correct title (I didn't have enough characters to type out the entire title and forgot to add the correct title in the post). Part of my argument is against people who hide the fact that they were using AI and act as if the text/code/art was man-made. >

Oh sure, but that's just like putting a pencil filter over a photo and claiming you drew that. That's not really an AI specific thing. >

Yeah, but AI lets you do similar stuff with higher-quality content. And the fact that AI keeps on getting better at this thing is kinda... unnerving? (IDK what word to use) >

Why though?
Either AI becomes so powerful that it can make perfect pictures, then you don't need to hire anyone who might deceive you by using AI, you can just use the AI yourself.
Or it will stay reckognizable as AI art, in which case you can't be tricked.
Or it will stay recognizable but artists can use it as a base to adapt into the desired piece, in which case it's just a tool used to create art. Which will bring prices for commissions down and such... >


Either AI becomes so powerful that it can make perfect pictures, then you don't need to hire anyone who might deceive you by using AI, you can just use the AI yourself.

Because currently, companies like OpenAI are planning on monetising their best AI tools. And even with AI, you may need other photo editing skills which you may not have but an artist may have. Sure, the artist does work, but not for the 10 hours I said in the example.

Or it will stay reckognizable as AI art, in which case you can't be tricked. Or it will stay recognizable but artists can use it as a base to adapt into the desired piece, in which case it's just a tool used to create art. Which will bring prices for commissions down and such...

Okay, these two possibilities can remove the possibility of misusing AI. >

Is that a real problem or more a sign that many skills are becoming obsolete?
Your argument is basically this is saving a bunch of time and that's not fair to people wasting their time.
I guess it makes a difference whether this is for education or making money, but then I'd say that giving tasks like that for education is a bit pointless too. The new skill should be to find the errors the ai makes, not wasting time writing a wall of text >

I edited the post to add the correct title (I didn't have enough characters to type out the entire title and forgot to add the correct title in the post). Part of my argument is against people who hide the fact that they were using AI and act as if the text/code/art was man-made. >


Part of my argument is against people who hide the fact that they were using AI and act as if the text/code/art was man-made.

So your problem is with people, rather than AI. >

Why is "artists" in quotation marks? >

I forgot to erase those quotation marks which I made when I accidentally moved the cursor (I added an edit to the post that the word wasn't supposed to be in quotation marks). >

The problem isn't the people who use tools like ChatGPT to "replace" artists or writers or whatever. They're just people using a tool like any other, no different than replacing various types of formerly-manual labor with automation.
The artists have good reasons for their objections, but ultimately the situation is so much bigger than AI art: it's coming for us all! Programmers and office workers and every kind of cognitive labor is now being automated. There are programming AIs that are capable of solving all the code challenges used in programmer interviews.
The thing is, we can have Star Trek replicators, or we can have the Protestant work ethic where your value as a person and your standard of living are dependent on your productive labor for others, but we can't have both.
And we're in a situation where we have a.) entrenched portions of society who benefit from a world of scarcity and don't want a world of abundance, and b.) a much larger portion of society who cannot imagine what a world of abundance would be like, and both of those are looking at the problem as "how do we make sure everyone has jobs to make money in a world where AI is better than humans at 99% of tasks" and not "why does everyone need to have jobs to make money in a world where AI is better than humans at 99% of tasks?"
The issue is not "misuse" of these tools to replace artists. Artists would be just excited about AI art if they didn't need to sell art for money in order to live. And that's the problem -- AI is reaching the point where it's incompatible with a capitalist economy. >

The two major issues are:


These services would not and could not function without the existing work of people who saw no compensation, attribution, or protections of their works. Especially given that the knowledge and application of work in the use for training data would be inconceivable, not 10 years ago.


The ability for misuse, either in fraudulent actions, or by failing to protect artists from association and publicity. That these services can be used to emulate an artists work and attach associations which might negatively harm their reputations or future works. 


The problem is not how it might be used as a tool, which has noble intentions, but in unforeseen ways which can actively harm those whose work was critical in making them functional.
A watermark would be beneficial (for straight replication), so too would be the blacklisting of any identifiable name of a person. This doesn’t mean that a style couldn’t still be used, just that instead of Van Gogh specifically, people would use post-impressionist, or cubism instead of Picasso. >


These services would not and could not function without the existing work of people who saw no compensation, attribution, or protections of their works. Especially given that the knowledge and application of work in the use for training data would be inconceivable, not 10 years ago.

I hate this argument so much. Yes, the AI has learned how to make art by looking at art made by humans. You want to know how those humans learn to make art? By looking at art made by humans.  The literal same way.
Humans copy each other's artistic styles all the time and there's never any question that somehow this warrants compensation to the artist who style is being copied. Why is it fine for a human to look at a bunch of stuff that you painted and paint something in your style, but it's wrong for a computer to do the same thing?
What this really boils down to is that artists are afraid of the competition. They expect disruption to their ability to make a living by producing art. I sympathize, but seems like this is leading to them proposing a solution wherein they are effectively taxing the technology that replaces them in order to fund their no longer necessary efforts.
It's a bit like if the buggy whip manufacturers had somehow lobbied people and convinced them that they needed to put a tax on cars to subsidize their industry because they weren't going to be able to make a profit anymore thanks to the evil cars not needing to be whipped. >

Humans and software aren’t the same thing, it doesn’t matter how closely they resemble one another in function. At the end of the day, a human can say no, the software will always give you what best fits its model.
Artists aren’t afraid of the competition, they just don’t like their work being used in ways they never agreed to, and don’t consent to. >


Humans and software aren’t the same thing, it doesn’t matter how closely they resemble one another in function. At the end of the day, a human can say no, the software will always give you what best fits its model.

I mean yes, this is a difference, but I've not understanding what point you think this makes.  Humans should be allowed to copy artistic styles while software shouldn't be allowed to because humans have the ability to say no? I don't get it. There's no rational way to draw a line between a and b there.

Artists aren’t afraid of the competition, they just don’t like their work being used in ways they never agreed to, and don’t consent to. 

But they've never had this right. Anyone could copy an artist's style. There's no legal protection that says I can't look at a Jackson Pollock painting and decide that I'm going to splash some paint on my canvas too. I've never needed to call up Jackson Pollock and get consent before splashing paint on a canvas before. Now suddenly artists deserve this extra level of protection? Now they suddenly need to be able to copyright their style then they've never had this right before?  The entire art world is built on theft. Every artist has copied from another artist at some point. Every artist has done an exercise in painting in someone else's style either for fun or as a part of art school or something. People have always trained by using other people's art. This is not a new thing. >


the real problem as per my understanding isn't the existence of these tools, but the existence of people who write code, make essays, or generate art, and then spend a few minutes editing to make it look more human-like, and act as if they made it on their own when the actual work would take hours or even days.

Problem is that they act like it requires more work than it actually do... What is the issue here? That they ask more money or what?
If you have a tool that makes your work more efficient why shouldn't you use it? >

I edited the post to add the correct title (I didn't have enough characters to type out the entire title and forgot to add the correct title in the post). Part of my argument is against people who hide the fact that they were using AI and act as if the text/code/art was man-made. >

And what is the problem here? If I want a pretty picture and get a pretty picture what's the issue? >

Dude, read the new title I made. There is nothing wrong with using it if you just want a pretty picture, only with acting as if you made that picture (especially if you monetise it or make people think you are talented). >

But I made the pretty picture. I used tools to do it. It's do different from using tools like Photoshop or using a camera or using premade paints. Those are all just tools that people use to make pretty pictures.
What is wrong with using tools that help you make more and better pretty pictures faster and easier? >

Well AI is more ordering food from a restaurant and then acting like you made it, whilst tools in Photoshop are kitchen appliences that make the food making process easier.
One is a dishonest use of a tool. >

The real problem with current AI tools is that they require assets created by humans for training and those humans aren't compensated for their contribution to the machine learning algorithms. It's why you can ask ChatGPT to write an essay in the style of a writer, because the model was trained off of works of that artist and replicate without ever attributing credit to the artist for their contribution. Same with stable diffusion and AI "art". The biggest problem isn't the tool use cases and how they can transform work but rather how the tool is developed and trained and the lack of credit and monetization control going to the laborers behind the tool. >

As technology has advanced to make work faster and more efficient and enabled individual workers to produce more goods and services in a shorter amount of time the additional value created per hour of work has never been passed along to the workers. The company simply fires some of them and forces an ever shrinking group of workers to produce the same volume of product that the larger group did for the same pay. Computers doing almost everything and permanent unemployment for a massive percentage of the population has always been inevitable. And IF the government decides to do something about the fact that the rich are getting richer than ever, while able bodied people starve in the streets because there are simply no jobs for them, it will take likely decades of it getting worse and worse to force its hand.
Tools like these are a huge step towards that dark future. They allow the automation of an entire set of tasks that were previously reserved for humans. I definitely think this technology is scary and the main problem with it is that it exists at all.
Your assertion that the main problem with this new generation of AI is that it will allow skilled workers to “pretend that AI-produced output was made by them” is, imho, very shortsighted. You’re basically victim blaming people who are about to be permanently out of work because their jobs have been completely cut, automated by accusing them of something bad a handful of them could potentially do for the brief period of time between the development of these technologies and the inevitable corporate privatization of them. >

I think the primary problem is whom owns these tools, and the owners of the economic entities that will capitalize off of these tools. >

The thing with AI s is almost the same as factory automation but worse , they are tools but actually they are more than just tools , they are the automation of jobs that couldnt be automated before 
So basicly yes we are screwed >

Computers are still not capable of making good music and good art without human input, because they have no way of knowing what the people will want. >

You statement is a bit incoherent, but I'll say this, the original part of your argument is wrong because it's like saying, "The real problem with a tractor, like the Ford 4000, is the fact that they can easily be misused as a replacement for doing actual work, instead of a tool to make better work possible."
Like 90% of those people who used to work on farms are now specializing and creating cool things that make life much better for everyone. Yeah alot of people lost their job when you could plow a field with a tractor instead of beating mules to do it, and paying people to pick the crops, but society is so much better with the tractor. It freed up so many human resources. >

A lot of work is bullshit, if ai can take some of the strain from a bullshit task, that's a moral good. >

Art is made by people. It’s a human expression. ChatGPT writes a love poem to my wife for me. It’s not a real expression of anything since an AI cannot express. It’s powdered eggs. There is not object for critique and analysis. It’s is something as it exists but it is not set. It’s like almond milk. >

Even if the issue with AI art and such was only the misuse, thisbisnoverlooking several other issues- like the fact that majority of information an AI gets is Stolen. And ruins paths for artists, writers and academics, who have worked for this for years. >

As with all tools, people who use them at face value to be lazy won’t benefit, but the group of people who understand the tool and know how to use it best to make “better work” as you put it will benefit greatly from it
ChatGPT is just a new shiny tool the same as the calculator was, and yes it’s completely game-changing across a large part of the workforce it’ll function just as any new tool being introduced the population does.
So really why is people using chatgpt to be lazy a problem? We made a tool that people can use to complete tasks easier, that’s the definition of a tool. I’m sure people said the same things about calculators making people lazy when they became commercially available >


So yeah, the real problem as per my understanding isn't the existence of these tools, but the existence of people who write code, make essays, or generate art, and then spend a few minutes editing to make it look more human-like, and act as if they made it on their own when the actual work would take hours or even days.

Why are you against the circumvention of "actual work"? If a task can be done in 27 man hours and be deemed satisfactory for business purposes, or that task can be done in 27 minutes and be deemed satisfactory for business purposes, what is the benefit of doing something the longer or harder way?
This kind of sentiment emerges at every major technological shift. That the skill and care taken by individuals doing it the hard way cannot be replaced by an automated process.  Except that it almost always can.
The measurement of the worth of something doesn't lie in the difficulty in doing it, but the value of the end product. If one can produce code to solve a problem quickly, does it matter if that code took 2 hours to make or 2 months? Either way, the problem is solved. Indeed, the faster solution may make problems solvable that weren't worth solving before. If i value my time at $50 per hour, and it takes 200 hours (the slow way) to solve a problem, then I am not going to charge less than $1000 to solve it. If the people with the problem are only losing $200 from the problem, that problem isn't worth fixing.
But if I can do it in 2 hours? Now that problem may be worth solving.
You're approaching this from a purist perspective. The quality is the only thing that matters. But if that were true, McDonald's wouldn't outperform a 5 star diner. It does though, because sometimes people don't need perfect. They need good enough. And while McDonald's isn't perfectly seasoned, or the finest meats and vegetables and sauces, it's still chosen millions of times daily by people who decide that something good enough (that is cheap and available quickly) is preferable to something that is fantastic (but not cheap or quickly available).
In short, there's a lot more artwork in the rooms of 2 star hotels than there is in the Louvre. >


The measurement of the worth of something doesn't lie in the difficulty in doing it, but the value of the end product

But won't making it easier to produce reduce the value of said product? Besides that, I agree with everything you said just now. >

No.  It will only reduce the minimum amount chargeable for the product.  Think of man hours as a cost, like say, art supplies. Now ask if using an inexpensive medium reduces the value of the end product? Not really. An original doodle on a bar napkin by Picasso would sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. If it were on high quality poster, the value wouldn't really charge. 
Similarly, that doodle, even if it took 3 minutes to sl draw, would still be worth what it is worth. Because the time taken isn't relevant to the value the buyer places on it. Other factors, such as rarity, the name attached, and historical significance, are much more relevant. >

Ah, right then. I feel that your comment is the most detailed and convincing argument so far. !delta >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Talik1978 (24∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

We will end up getting to a point where AI will do everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) better than humans. We will have to change the way society works and how income is distributed and the sooner we start asking these questions the better. Capitalism isn't the way basically because we will get to a point where human workforce will have 0 value.