So suppose someone wants to say provide localized versions of their software and avails themselves of translation software. Are we supposing that such ought not exist to provide for the livelihood of the translator who would otherwise have been paid?
If so where do we stop. Do we stop at knowledge work or do we go back to shovels and ban heavy equipment or shall we go all the way back to labor intensive farming methods?
>Egos here sometimes are quite a thing to see. Maybe its good that chops are coming also for this privileged groups, a bit of humility never hurts.
This doesn't appear to be so. AI is discussed as a pretext for layoffs more fashion than function.
But I am willing to grant you that. From a big picture society perspective, if it means that ordinary people like me who cannot afford to pay an artist can now create art sufficiently good for my needs, then this is a net win. I just made an AI song a week ago that got mildly popular, and just got a request to use it at a conference. No one is losing their job because of me. I wouldn't have had the money to pay an artist to create it, and nor would the conference organizers. Yet, society is clearly benefiting.
The same goes for translators (I'm not actually aware that they're losing jobs in a significant way, but I'll accept the premise). Even before LLMs, the fact that I could use Babelfish to translate was fantastic - LLMs are merely an incremental improvement over it.
To me, arguing we shouldn't have AI translators is not really different from arguing we shouldn't have Babelfish/Google Translate. Likely 99% of the people who will benefit from it couldn't afford a professional translator.
(I have, BTW, used a professional translator to get some document translated - his work isn't going away, because organizations need a certified translator).
> People at various bureaucratic positions doing more menial white collar work?
"Menial white collar work" sounds like a good thing to eliminate. Do you want to go back to the days where word processors were not a thing and you had to pay someone to type things up?
> People had/have decent livehoods from those, I know a few. If they could easily got better jobs they would go for them.
I'll admit I spoke somewhat insensitively - yes, even I know people who had good careers with some of them, but again: Look to the past and think of how many technologies have replaced people, and do you wish those technologies did not replace people?
Do you want to deal with switchboard operators every time you make a call?
Do you want to have to deal with a stock broker every time you want to buy/sell?
Do you want to pay a professional every time you want to print a simple thing?
Do you want to go back to snail mail?
Do you want to do all your shopping in person or via a physical catalog?
The list goes on. All of these involved replacing jobs where people earned honest money.
Everything I've listed above has been a bigger disruption than LLMs (so far - things may change in a few years).
> Egos here sometimes are quite a thing to see. Maybe its good that chops are coming also for this privileged groups, a bit of humility never hurts.
Actually, I would expect the SW industry to be amongst the most impacted, given a recent report showing which industries actually use LLMs the most (I think usage was SW was greater than all other industries combined).
As both an engineer and a programmer, who makes a living via programming, I am not opposed to LLMs, even if my job is at risk. And no, I'm not sitting on a pile of $$$ that I can retire on any time soon.
That you specifically wish for them to not even exist is your own internal problem and actually pretty horrible thing to say all things considered.
People had/have decent livehoods from those, I know a few. If they could easily got better jobs they would go for them.
Egos here sometimes are quite a thing to see. Maybe its good that chops are coming also for this privileged groups, a bit of humility never hurts.