>


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.
/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?