Criticism of AI taking jobs is a fair take. Even if AI only makes the workflow more efficient, that’s less people that need to be hired in the industry. It’s fair in realizing that AI is valuable, and is doing amazing things, while also criticizing the downsides of using it.
AI is in its infancy. Different techniques are only going to make it better and better at what it does - it will end up taking jobs. But just broadly claiming it’s bad because you can’t read words that already weren’t readable in the source material is silly.
The reactionary take is “AI is useless, nobody should be using it” or “They should label everything that uses AI so I can avoid it!”…those takes are completely reactionary. The takes complaining about the ‘quality’ of the AI upscale, even though it looks FANTASTIC are reactionary. An upscale wouldn’t be available at all if AI hadn’t been produced to do it. So it’s clearly worth using. It’s produced a result that I’m sure MANY are happy with. There’s only a small handful of extraordinarily LOUD individuals making a fuss over it.
I think the biggest criticism of AI is the one that almost NOBODY actually ever complains about: Jobs. Wages are already lower than they have been in 20 years, and NOW it takes EVEN less people to do the same job? Wealth inequality is only going to be exacerbated by AI.
Edit: Also wasn’t me who downvoted your question asking me to define reactionary – so I upvoted to try and counter it, it’s a fair question to ask I think.
AI BAD is a reactionary take. It’s a conservative social idea.
Is there a criticism of AI you wouldn’t categorize as reactionary?
Criticism of AI taking jobs is a fair take. Even if AI only makes the workflow more efficient, that’s less people that need to be hired in the industry. It’s fair in realizing that AI is valuable, and is doing amazing things, while also criticizing the downsides of using it.
AI is in its infancy. Different techniques are only going to make it better and better at what it does - it will end up taking jobs. But just broadly claiming it’s bad because you can’t read words that already weren’t readable in the source material is silly.
The reactionary take is “AI is useless, nobody should be using it” or “They should label everything that uses AI so I can avoid it!”…those takes are completely reactionary. The takes complaining about the ‘quality’ of the AI upscale, even though it looks FANTASTIC are reactionary. An upscale wouldn’t be available at all if AI hadn’t been produced to do it. So it’s clearly worth using. It’s produced a result that I’m sure MANY are happy with. There’s only a small handful of extraordinarily LOUD individuals making a fuss over it.
I think the biggest criticism of AI is the one that almost NOBODY actually ever complains about: Jobs. Wages are already lower than they have been in 20 years, and NOW it takes EVEN less people to do the same job? Wealth inequality is only going to be exacerbated by AI.
Edit: Also wasn’t me who downvoted your question asking me to define reactionary – so I upvoted to try and counter it, it’s a fair question to ask I think.