I don't know much about professional translating, but wouldn't you be able to track the error rate of the machine translation by looking at the number of corrections? And then translators could use this as leverage to negotiate better pay if it's obvious they need are translating from scratch in, say, 50% of cases anyway.
This might not be the answer you're looking for, but I've frequently heard that charities are in dire need of people willing to do hands-on work instead of the "comfy" administrative stuff. Someone who is willing to guard the entrance to a DV shelter, for example, or someone to come in and do a few loads of laundry. I know we want to help with the skills we have, but it seems charities already have enough supply of people wanting to do some low-key work. Meanwhile the real problems go unsolved.
You can ask it to specify or point out any logical errors you observed and it will correct itself. If there's a contradiction I know that the information might be incorrect. I'm also just using it as a starting point to prime my brain, of course as of today we still need other sources to verify the knowledge.
It can explain stuff to you in exactly the way you need to, and walk you through problems. You can ask it to create quizzes / guided questions for you which helps in organizing your own thoughts. Another application I find quite remarkable is asking it for good prompts for image generation models. The biggest benefit is that you're not starting from zero when entering a new problem space / domain.
> However do note that capitalist entities have infiltrated the government and have huge sway over it's regulatory policies meaning that anti-business regulatory policies are unlikely to occur.
Maybe this is the case in the US, the EU is known for being much more strict in its regulations, which is often ridiculed by the rest of the world. Those same people are going to hope for regulations once we see the effects of the current Wild West that is AI.
If we truly live in a world where those in power seek to eliminate all other (non-powerful) humans from the equation, then maybe that's our real problem. For the record, I don't actually believe this is the case. Some people might work toward this goal but I doubt that most powerful people would voluntarily want to give up their influence over the masses. Which is what they'd do if they leave them to fend for themselves while the bots run their businesses. At some point, when you have enough money already, you don't actually seek more money, you seek more influence, and money is just the vehicle. ETA: btw, if a truly autonomous money-making machine is invented, that's just going to cause inflation, making it all worthless.
Capitalism and its value system is subjective, too. It's not set in stone. I believe we can still steer away from profit as the sole driver of, well, everything, if we want to.
Oh, I do believe programming as a profession is at risk and will change a lot, if not rendered obsolete. What I'm talking about is this idea of "just get used to the fact that there is no human skill that won't be replicable by AI in 2-10 years". It's a very bleak view of the future and our own biological complexity. We need to remember that we are the ones inventing the AI in the first place. We are limited by our imperfect ability to understand ourselves. It will get better, sure, there will be emergent properties, but there's no need to reject the inherent value of humanity even if it happens to produce less economically viable output.
This is what I wonder as well. We are told to "prepare" for the reality of AI taking our jobs soon, but how? What is the alternative field that will be a) safe from automation for a while and b) pay similarly to a CS/IT career? I haven't found the answer to this. We were told to get a higher education and go into "white collar" fields, and now we're told we were stupid for believing that these jobs would have a future. Seems very cynical.
Comments like this always read as "we can already extrapolate that everything we do will be done better by a machine soon". Pushing back against this argument isn't just ignorance or avoidance of change. It just asks the relevant question of whether we can be so sure that AI does everything "better". But how dare we challenge the hubris of tech bros, right?
I'm really really skeptical about the professional growth you can achieve during mostly unguided ~2 hours a week. Might be enough to read some articles, but not enough to build any marketable skills. ETA: I know very few people who find it enjoyable or sustainable to account for every single minute in their day, humans also need rest and downtime to continue to function.
In short, the job hunt is going to become even more unbearable. I don't trust companies with the kind of leverage they're going to have with AI at their fingertips.
If you have the secret on how to work 40+ hours, stay healthy, on top of chores and social obligations, have at least a little time for your hobbies, get your 8 hours of sleep, and learn a new profession on the side, please do share. Most people are already fully booked with a fraction of these things.
So software engineer salaries will experience a race to the bottom because you'd have to be grateful to be hired as one. That's just the way it is, I guess, but I can't fault people for feeling bitter that the skills they've built over many years or decades will be massively devalued. I often wonder which profession is safe from others working as hard as they can to make it less valuable. Probably you'd have to get on the side of those building the automations. Become an AI/ML engineer or starve, basically.
And you seem to think it's every human's moral obligation to not only spend the majority of their waking hours at work, but also their free time on making themselves more valuable to corporations. And that's not a moral presumption? Where does that leave time for anything else in life?
Since companies do need workers and working is mandatory in our society, it seems weird to expect people to always be ready (and able) to mold themselves into whatever a company wants at the snap of a finger just so they're "allowed" to work in the first place.
You may think so, companies are notorious for rejecting middle aged applicants in favor of 20-somethings because the latter are considered more malleable and eager to prove themselves.
If it has been that bad or worse before, I wonder why we're not learning from it then. Humanity as a whole will be fine but tons of individuals are going to have their lives ruined.
I have been with such a person and I can tell you the cognitive dissonance of that life weighed on them and made them generally unpleasant in many ways.
If you want to be a nice person, you can't be nice in hopes of being rewarded later. That's not nice, it's just spineless. I am trying my best to be kind and generous even though I know I'll not "win" anything by society's standards. What I get is a sense of integrity, which is enough.
What worries me is not so much the fear of a certain job becoming obsolete, but the fear of the alternative new jobs becoming inaccessible to those left behind by automation. You can have a good and stable career and do everything "right" and still end up a complete beginner a few years later because your skills are worthless now. Especially after a certain age, employers won't choose you over fresh graduates who are knowledgeable in the new tech. The standard advice is to "always keep learning" but not every job will give you the opportunity to do so. Someone's gotta do what has to be done, we can't all just learn new things all the time. Also I wonder how much we'll realistically be able to keep up because the pace of new change has been steadily increasing. We've seen AI breakthroughs over the course of months.
> Firstly, technology moves fast but business's move slow.
True. This is one thing that gives me hope at the moment, especially since my country is notoriously slow in adopting technological chance anyway, lol. It's easy to forget that not everyone lives and works at the bleeding edge.
> If you are the one leading the charge then you're probably not the one they are going to get rid of when they start needing less developers.
Yeah, I am very curious and eager to learn by nature, and I grasp new concepts and their relationships to other topics quickly (other's words, not mine), but I've been burned before, so I've become more cautious. I don't fit the profile of a typical nerd so I lack credibility right off the bat even though I have outperformed self-proclaimed seniors on more than one occasion. I've found myself naturally unafraid of taking charge but sometimes people won't let you. For example, I was working on a project where I was technological lead and the dude from another agency we were working with (and kinda dependent on) was referring to me as (non-technical) "project manager" constantly and refused to talk to me about technical matters. Things like this have happened with middle-aged men quite often, who tend to dominate the field where I live. Sorry for the tangent but it might explain some of my cautiousness.
> But it's his dream and that's what he decide was best for him.
Glad to hear it felt right for him. I feel I'm not in a position where I can afford following my dream at the moment.
Yeah, I've heard the same from other people who have been around the block much longer than I have. On the other hand, something about AI just feels like it could be disruptive in the same way that the printing press got rid of typesetters and cars got rid of horse carriages.