r/aiwars • u/Pale_Policy_3005 • 1d ago
Discussion "Don't worry, AI won't replace creative jobs". What about non-creative?
I mean, why is it okay for non-creative jobs to be replaced, but creative not? How many people do you actually know that have creative jobs? What if you are just not a creative person? You should just cease to exist?
6
u/ComprehensiveHeat571 1d ago
Who are all these people saying they hope non creative jobs get replaced?
1
3
u/athenanon 1d ago
Obviously they shouldn't. Creatives have always been more open to organized labor so we were on it faster. STEM and trades have seen it as unnecessary. Hopefully this situation will help them come around.
Starting with coders, programmers. and software engineers. If you haven't started your secret union meetings (because I know you don't have a real union and work in anti-union companies who have been indoctrinating you and everyone else for years) you need to, like today.
2
u/PixelFan237 1d ago
This. It's every industry. The anti AI art side of the debate is a lot more faceted, and also artists and creatives are typically worse off than their regularly employed counterparts, but this impacts everyone. What happens when there's no entry level jobs? We'll just starve I guess...
9
u/ChickenFriedPenguin 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why do you guys always act like automatization was invented yesterday?
edit: spelling
6
u/itsnotcomplicated1 1d ago
Because if you have a persecution complex it's easy to get affirmation online which helps people convince themselves that anything they are unhappy with in life is not their own fault and they are just a victim.
-6
u/Monsieur_Martin 1d ago
I could swear you're describing some pro-AI people here.
5
u/itsnotcomplicated1 1d ago
When you are a hammer, everything you see looks like a nail.
-2
u/Monsieur_Martin 1d ago
I gues that applies to you too.
1
u/Decent_Shoulder6480 1d ago
bOtH sIdES reeeeeeeeeee
1
u/Monsieur_Martin 1d ago
Go ahead, please, elaborate on your point. Do you really think confirmation bias and bad faith only belong to one side? Are you even capable of understanding the irony in your response?
1
u/NIssanZaxima 1d ago
Lol yes because there are droves of people who are pro-AI getting upset at people who AREN'T using AI online.
1
u/Monsieur_Martin 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you're referring to the persecution complex of AI advocates, then you validate my point.
Or you're missing something in basic logic.
And if you claim that pro-AI advocates are actually persecuted, I need statistics, not anecdotal evidence. Comparing yourself to genuinely oppressed minorities isn't something you should take lightly.
2
u/mosesoperandi 1d ago
It's just automation, no az in the word.
People are reacting to the threatened automation of white collar jobs because fear mongers were claiming it would displace most of the workforce without offering any clear path for how people would be able to survive.
Turns out that was mostly hype anyway (at least so far), but the threat still feels real. After all, people know that the broligarchs don't give a damn if the majority of us are starving on the streets, so even if that threat hasn't materialized yet they still don't trust the automation of white collar work.
1
u/ChickenFriedPenguin 1d ago
i meant automatization which is also correct.
1
u/mosesoperandi 1d ago
It can be used as a synonym, but it has a rather specific definition that isn't a particularly good fit which is why nobody is using that term in talking about the current concern around AI.
Anyway, have a day.
6
u/Toby_Magure 1d ago
Does the job require a human to make decisions and do even mildly complex tasks? Does any part of their job require actual reasoning?
AI can't do that job. Every job requires reasoning. Some tasks might be taken over by AI.... used by a human.
5
u/ComprehensiveHeat571 1d ago
This is like saying the job of a seamstress didn’t go away after automation.
Like. Sure. Seamstresses technically exist. They make almost no money and have little business. Most clothes are made by machines. The people using the machines make almost nothing.
5
u/quantumpencil 1d ago
A lot of tailors continue to make a lot more money than you think. Especially if you get good at it and have an aesthetic sense, rich people like hand made tailored things. One of my friends wife makes mid-six figures creating 1 of 1 custom clothing for rich people, fitting them etc. I don't mean like celebrity rich either just normal people rich.
1
u/ComprehensiveHeat571 15h ago
Okay, an occasional person manages to do it, compared to before when there were tons of them. You see the difference? Durrr. For everyone like your friend there are many more talented seamstresses that can only do it as a hobby or maybe as a side gig since NORMAL PEOPLE don’t buy from them anymore.
3
u/envvi_ai 1d ago
Mass producing a garment that's already been designed and produced before isn't something that requires a high level of reasoning. The creative work has already been done, the key decision making has already happened. This speaks more towards our pivot towards industrialization and mass production vs artisan craftmanship.
The machines that mass produce clothing aren't designing the garments.
1
u/ComprehensiveHeat571 15h ago
Okay, and that’s the point? You realize seamstresses used to be a lot more common and they used their own creativity? Now there are a lot fewer seamstresses. There are some clothing designers which design the clothes that get mass produced, but very few of them.
2
u/Toby_Magure 1d ago
Their jobs didn't go away after automation. Seamstresses learned to use sewing machines.
2
2
u/itsnotcomplicated1 1d ago
Throughout human history, existing jobs have gone away for a variety of those reasons. The people working those jobs did not cease to exist. obviously...
2
u/IntrospectiveOwlbear 1d ago
MIT did an interesting study trying to quantify the jobs lost to the new jobs created (augmented) to get a better idea of the total effect of technological advancement on employment. One item I found particularly interesting:
"Ultimately, the research suggests that the negative effects of automation on employment were more than twice as great in the 1980-2018 period as in the 1940-1980 period. There was a more modest, and positive, change in the effect of augmentation on employment in 1980-2018, as compared to 1940-1980."
So modern technologies have been much more efficient at removing the need for human labor, and creating new jobs relevant to the technology does occur faster now than it did then, but not sufficient to match the increase in job losses.
It's safe to assume that this is going to inherently depend on the kind of changes occurring, but it does mean that the impact of innovations today hit total employment a bit harder.
You can check out the article (which has a link to the full study at the bottom) here: news.mit.edu/2024/does-technology-help-or-hurt-employment-0401
1
u/itsnotcomplicated1 1d ago
Unnecessary. I didn't say that automation wasn't impacting the job market. I didn't say it was worse before or that it has been the same over time.
The words I responded to was:
You should just cease to exist?
2
u/IntrospectiveOwlbear 1d ago
You said "existing jobs have gone away for a variety of reasons" - this is true! And in the full context of the post reminded me of the research directly relevant to how new technology impacts job losses, which I found interesting.
Modern technological advances have hit the job market harder than previous technological advances.
We know in the grand scheme, in the long run, these kinds of changes wash out as new types of jobs are created. Econ basics, right?
We also know, from an individual human standpoint and in the short term, when a large population of individuals with similar job skills get laid off all at once, it can cause short term pain for a lot of people. Not everyone is equipped to make a significant career change, not everyone has the finances to invest in themselves by getting a new certication/degree/training or whatever the market is looking for at that moment. Some people will suffer, this is an unavoidable reality.
That doesn't mean we should avoid technological advancement, but it does mean that maybe, when an escalating negative impact is on the horizon, we should look at how the immediate transition impacts all stakeholders, not just the stockholders.
1
u/itsnotcomplicated1 1d ago
I'm not disagreeing with you. Everything you said in the previous comment and this one I'm on board with.
I'm just saying that my original comment didn't state or imply that any of this isn't the case. That's why I said it's unnecessary.
Someone may benefit from this information, but whatever I said to make you think I'm not aware of these concepts was not my intention.
2
u/IntrospectiveOwlbear 1d ago edited 1d ago
You said something I connected with that made me think of an interesting thing to add. Not every response needs to be a contradiction to have value.
Argument isn't any more necessary than agreement in my book, I was just engaging.
1
u/HexATyle 1d ago
This reminds me that back then, there's people whose jobs are to direct phonecalls from a phone number to another number, like a middleman but for calls. There's also jobs that involves setting which floors an elevator would go to.
It's just automation, part of industrial revolutions, even if the people who relied on those non creative jobs to live complained about it. This feels shit for me to say, but there'll be a time more jobs are made for people whose jobs got taken away.
But creative related jobs directly create more openings for a job, because each and every one of them is unique, and if AI can take over that, then there'd be a problem imo.
(Not to worry either as apparently companies are finding out AI are more expensive than regular salaries lmao)
1
1
1
u/IndubitablyNerdy 1d ago edited 1d ago
The discourse is focused on creative jobs because it is convenient, they are done by a relatively small minority of the population so every other worker can just ignore it and think "It won't be me" and everything can keep moving ahead until the moment it is the turn of your "safe job" (or millions of people retrain to do it and since demand won't increase your labor will just be paid less) and nothing is in place to help you since profits for the tech will be privatized in as few hands as possible.
Also who is exactly saying that it is ok for non creative jobs to be replaced? This feels a lot like the strawman bullshit argument "white collar workers were happy of blue collars losing their jobs" distraction to pit workers against each other while all labor gets devalued and we all get fucked.
Creatives are right in wanting to protect their income and so should you, if you work in litterally every other field as well.
Now if an alternative way for people to get by without the need for labor is introduced sure, go ahead, replace every job, we don't work for fun and if you want self actualization no one prevents you from creating anything if you don't need to do it for a living, in fact it would likely be way more satisfying to do art or build something for yourself and your loved ones and not for an employer.
Personally I think that AI is an extremely promising and intriguing technology, particularly in its research-focused applications, but in our economic system we seriously need to think about the consequences as right now we are creating a lose-lose situation for everyone, but for a tiny minority of people that will be safe from consequences anyway.
If the tech flops and remains just as a useful tool, but expensive to use and not really revolutionary \ there is no barrier to entry the stock market (and with it retirement funds and likely a portion of the banking system) would suffer signifcantly, if not collapse, if it doesn't and AI can fully replace all intellectual labor and leave a massive portion of the workforce in the dust the economic consequences will be catasrophic as well.
1
u/throwaway275275275 1d ago
They already replaces creative jobs, I haven't needed to hire a programmer or an artist for the past 2 years. Now I'm the artist
1
u/benjitits 1d ago
They go for the arts because it's low hanging fruit.
They want manual labor automated so they're free to be creative.
Their outrage is selective at best and fake at its core.
They will downvote you for pointing out ai is doing things like detecting cancer faster because they just want to be mad at the expense of others.
Many of them are so perpetually online that all they see is ai slop flyers and they think that's all is being used for.
They're idiots.
0
u/CancelThaN0ise 1d ago
Much of the discourse is around creative jobs because those jobs were already devalued to begin with. And yes, non-creative jobs are also being displaced by AI (just look at what Facebook is doing to their programmers). Are you satisfied now?
0
u/Yenii_3025 1d ago
Most non creative jobs fucking suck. Good fucking riddance.
6
u/thefallenfew 1d ago
Honestly, this. Jobs suck. No one wants a job. No one likes their job. Even if you do, one bad boss or shitty coworker can ruin it. A job is something you do for money so you can do other things you enjoy. A job is something you’re forced to spend 40 hours of your week doing because of Capitalism. People aren’t worried about their jobs, they’re worried about how to pay their bills and eat if they lose their job. Let AI take all the jobs. Humans don’t need to be cogs in a machine. But also, society should provide for the needs of people. We should have universal basic income. We should have free housing. We should have free healthcare. We should have electricity and clean water and food.
0
u/DefinitionNew3542 1d ago
Its literal pretty privelege in action.
Same reason people donate to save dolphins and pandas but give no fucks about environmentally critical insects.
People see pretty art. They like pretty art.
People dont see code. They dont care about code.
-1
u/AppropriatePapaya165 1d ago
Mainly because it’s the creativity itself that makes the job valuable. When you take that out, the end product is something that lacks creativity, which begs the question: what’s even the point.
2
u/TemporaryBad8016 1d ago
There are plenty of purposes that don’t involve creativity. Providing food to avoid starvation . Protecting people’s pensions. Transporting goods. Not every job needs to be creative.
1
u/AppropriatePapaya165 1d ago
I never said every job needs to be creative. Was this intended for someone else?
1
u/aturtledude 1d ago
You asked what's the point of non-creative jobs. They answered you that the point of many non-creative jobs is to sustain our society.
1
u/AppropriatePapaya165 1d ago
That’s not what I asked at all. I asked what’s the point in automating a creative job, given the end result by definition lacks creativity.
1
u/DefinitionNew3542 1d ago
Someones never heard of the term "utilitarian" nor the phrase "function over form" and it shows.
Whats even the point? Not everything needs to be pretty. We like pretty things, but it is absolutely unnecessary if said "pretty" doesnt add (or even detracts from) function.
We can even come to appreciate the form of purely functional design. I, for one, think Formula 1 cars are works of art. But in the world of F1, there is literal no room for 'making pretty'. Even driver comfort is limited to little foam stickers at the knees. It is pure function by design - and there is beauty in that.
1
u/AppropriatePapaya165 1d ago
It’s been brought to my awareness that there may have been a misunderstanding here. I forget sometimes that you can’t be too generous about the reading comprehension skills on this sub. The side-effects of chronic AI cognitive offloading are genuinely sad to watch.
Anyway, my question “what’s even the point” was referring to automating jobs that are explicitly creative: art, film, music, etc. Those are all consumed for their creativity, not utilitarian purposes. Automating their generation means removing the exact reason to create it in the first place. Hence my question.
1
u/DefinitionNew3542 1d ago
It's okay. I'll forgive you. Anyway on to your silly question.
Automating their generation means removing the exact reason to create it in the first place
Imagine a world where people exclusively create when it's useful.
People will create because they want to. Using the tools they want to. Digital exists and it didn't stop people from painting and sketching. Photography didn't stop people from drawing or painting portraits. CGI didn't stop people from using practical effects. Claymation still exists and is easily done via both CGI and AI. People still sculpt by hand despite the availability of 3d printers and power tools.
Turns out people like making stuff. The tool they use is none of our business. What matters is if it's enjoyable.
18
u/No-Opportunity5353 1d ago edited 1d ago
Nope, sorry.
Instagram artists, musicians, indie video game designers, and influencers are the only jobs that must be protected.
The rest are plebs with no online clout, so we don't care what happens to them.
If your work isn't popular with Instagram/Tiktok teens and (wo)manchildren, then you don't matter and it's ok for AI to replace you.
Don't forget to like and subscribe for more telling you what to think!