Hacker News Reader

Comment by manuka | Hacker News Reader

Why the terror? Your job will change a bit but won't be gone. You would guide the output and make prompts not with text but your own video CGI shorts to make things 100% to your liking and the AI will do the rest of the dirty work. You productivity will grow and quality of your work too. You would be able to make an AAA movie all by yourself on a laptop. Since everyone would be able to do the same, the fight for the imagination and inginuity in scripting and artists view would skyroket. :) IMHO

View on HN

You are rather cavalier about other people's livelihoods. There will be budget for maybe 10% of the people currently employed, and yes, they will be making use of the new tools and they'll adapt. The other 90% are going to be doing doordash until they can figure out a new career.

Initial displacement will happen and it will require time for society to adapt and new industries to mature. The printing press significantly reduced the cost of producing books and other printed materials, which led to a dramatic increase in the availability of books, literacy rates, and the spread of knowledge. This technological advancement didn’t just replace the scribes; it created new jobs in printing, publishing, book selling, and eventually led to the creation of new genres of literature.

Yes, in the long term the printing press brought many benefits. In the short term, a lot of people were out of work.

Who lost their jobs to the printing press? The monks who were the only scribes back then? They got their time freed to spend it on other duties in the monasteries and mayhaps even more time to read other books rather that to scribe them. So the level of education grew even for them.

The same will be for the FX artist and 3D artists etc. The level of their work will grow, they will spend less time on dull work and more on tinkering with tiny but more important things like ideas, emotions, art overall etc.

The terror is because companies want to maximize profits and a great way to do that is to minimize costs.

If you have a team of X people producing Y pieces, and now X people can produce 10Y pieces, everything is fine as long as the demand for pieces keeps up. But if your company really only needs Y pieces or really any amount less than 10Y then the easiest thing for a company to do is go, "We don't really need X people, let's fire some"

Getting fired, in America at least, means loss of healthcare, income, and if it persists long enough housing. Most people are terrified of being homeless, broke, and without access to medicine.

> as long as the demand for pieces keeps up

So the problem not in the AI but in demand...

AI causes the supply and demand to change by creating additional supply of pieces through increased productivity.

It's cold comfort to someone getting fired to tell them "If demand had also increased 10 fold you wouldn't have to sleep on the street."

The actual living human being who has had their livelihood destroyed probably isn't any less scared of their fate because you cleverly tut at them and go, "In actuality the AI didn't do anything bad to you, it just created a glut of supply and the market demand didn't keep up."

> Your job will change a bit but won't be gone. > You[r] productivity will grow

This aren't compatible at scale. If productivity grows, there will be less people doing the job.

Programmers are more productive than years ago and there are many more of them

Sometimes it looks like the peek is ending. Who knows.

Many people consider what you refer to as "the dirty work" as precisely the point of creative practices.

Depends on what you think is "dull work". I think there are many artist who could welcome some of the "creating work" to be automated. What part? Depends on the artists and his preferences. AI can take the burden of any type of work and leave those parts which are needed for the human to do. Human can choose what parts he will work on. That's the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com