• Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      6 days ago

      This… Almost looks like the op of this post used AI to translate and change the art style of this comic.

      • i_love_FFT@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Replaced by AI: traductor

        Also modified the art style to make it less violent and subversive, so cross “artist” of that list as well.

        With the original, we clearly understand that it should all have been filled with humans, but there was a progression in the center line where AI (killed and) replaced professions that were always thought to be irreplaceable by AI.

    • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 days ago

      Seems the translated variant misses a big point of the original artist too, notice how the gun slowly comes into view? It’s trying to make a point that the replacement isn’t quite organic, but rather forced on us. Probably would have been better to just translate the text in place and include the rightful credit.

    • mke@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Ironic. The translator and artist were the first ones to be killed, and now we got this bastardized AI “translation” that’s actually an entirely different image, but worse.

      This is why so many were confused about “personal,” I believe it’s a borrowed term in Brazil that popularly means personal trainer.

      Not personnel, not HR, not personal assistant, nor an AI hallucination, even as some confidently claimed them, all because the original work was discarded for a shitty alternative, much like workers themselves.

  • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    AI hasn’t replaced Translators and the attempt to use them to replace artists and journalists isn’t going as well as you would assume. AI isn’t replacing any skilled position. Anyone who told you it will, is selling you something or dreadfully ignorant on the topic.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yeah I find most of the AI art generators are just allowing people who aren’t artistic to make their own stuff which they wouldn’t have paid someone for anyways if AI wasn’t there, they would have just gone without, so it’s not really a lose to artists.

      • ArtificialHoldings@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        There’s a small, relatively low value market of commissioned online art that has been and will continue to be impacted. People who may have paid $50-60 for a (furry) OC will start going to AI image gens as the process becomes more refined and allows them to add detail to the end result without much effort.

        • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          I do not care about the market for furry OC. The people commissioning it or making it aren’t really deserving of money.

    • maporita@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Correct. But it has made Translators more productive so we need fewer of them. But the productivity gains will create other jobs and so on. So it’s not as clear cut as people think. What will likely happen is that some jobs will vanish (anyone here remember elevator operators?) while some jobs will change and in other cases new professions will be created.

      • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 days ago

        No it doesn’t. You guys are lying through your teeth. I designed systems for this. The software is completely forbidden. It sounds like you don’t understand the industry enough to have any opinion on the topic.

        • gadfly1999@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Well if it’s forbidden and wrong it sure didn’t stop one company I worked for from throwing all the strings in their app into Google Translate before giving the humans a crack at it. Maybe try being less hostile and accept that your experience isn’t universal.

            • gadfly1999@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              Well you’ve definitely made one thing clear: that you’re an asshole. I will just disregard everything else you’ve said because I don’t respect the opinions of assholes especially ignorant ones.

    • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I have done professional translation, as a side gig. The usual workflow involves a first run through machine translation (Deepl is my favorite), then opening the machine translation in a translation program (I use CafeTran), which is used to make the second pass, by the human translator. This program doesn’t translate (they can use one of the main translation engines) but provides a bunch of tools to make the translation refining process easier.

      Pure machine translation is a hack. AI can’t grasp nuances, contexts, etc… You will often see many words that may have several meanings, used incorrectly, for example.

      • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        6 days ago

        I was a Sr Architect at a company that does this. No they do not use a level of machine translation first. In fact most of our contracts would have been violated if we did that at all. We implemented techniques to stop people from being able to.

        If you don’t understand how translating movie is different than translating in court or a medical setting you’re top uneducated on the topic to have a valid opinion.

        • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Did you miss the “usual” part? I know there are translations that need to be done strictly by humans, but they are definitely not the majority. In my country there is a group of translators that are “official” translators, people with an actual masters in translation, and who must pass a very hard official exam. They translate things like official documents, legal matters, etc, but they do a very small percentage of translations.

        • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          You think maybe your experience isn’t the only workflow that exists for translation and different audiences might require different levels of scrutiny and authenticity? No, you think the other person is completely full of shit instead and just decided to be an ass about it. Titles don’t mean shit by the way, I’ve handed so many Sr. Architect titles to admins even though they can’t see the forest from the trees or understand the business side of anything just to shut them up while I found someone to replace their ego. Flippantly throwing around a title lets everyone else that knows what’s actually going on that you can’t stand on your own merit, that’s all, get over yourself and stop being flippant towards people sharing their experiences just because they were different than your own, it’s childish.

          • gadfly1999@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            I think frosty pieces is salty because their pieces are cold and dead. Sounds like they got a lateral “promotion” to a place where their toxic bullshit would be someone else’s problem.

          • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            You think maybe I know more about this industry than you. This is like when hill billies refuse vaccines. I can be flippant when I dismiss you because you’re lying through your teeth about some sort of fake expertise. You should be silent on topics you don’t know anything about.

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Having worked for a software company that needed translation services, I can confirm that translation software is indeed very necessary.

      People would notice when the word “date” is interpreted as “date on a calendar” in one file and “romantic event” in another, but AI sure doesn’t.

      Even Google’s apps have broken Dutch translations by reusing existing strings for different contexts that don’t mean the same elsewhere. “Search” gets translated to different words depending on if it’s used a noun or a verb, for fucks sake!

    • Yoga@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I saw a video of a guy that worked in graphic design and he got replaced by an AI logo maker.

      FWIW after about 5 minutes he’d already basically disclosed how useless he already was and how his 40 hour week could have been replaced by someone spending 30 minutes on a $12 per month logo making website.

      I can assure you though he felt that he was a “skilled worker”. All skills can ‘feel’ useful but if they aren’t efficient who cares? Climbing up walls is a cool skill, ladders make it not very marketable though.

      • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Clearly this one video you didn’t link is irrefutable proof. Lol.

        AI isn’t taking your job. Artists will still be here when tech bros give up on AI.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s true that it can’t replace a skilled profession. But I honestly believe you could replace most middle management with AI already. Of course the bar is incredibly low on that.

      • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        It can replace middle managers, but software and a spreadsheet could have done that 15 years ago. Middle management is there so the ruling class can redirect your anger to them. They’re scape goats.

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 days ago

    People under Capitalism: Oh no, our jobs are being automated. 😱😭

    People under Socialism: Finally! Now that our jobs are being automated, I can chill and watch TV, maybe go on a vacation. 😎🏖🍺🎉🎊🎇🎆

    (Btw, USSR/Russia and PRC are not socialist, don’t get confused)

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      But you’re living in capitalism. Unless government forces billionaires to fund social programs, they will just keep getting richer, just like it’s happening right now (if we ignore the crashing markets, but you get the idea)

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s not a Lemmy thing, it’s a global phenomenon. Humans are using AI more than ever, and believe it or not, humans use Lemmy.

      • RandomVideos@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        But its not a gradual change. AI posts used to be rare, in 2 days i found more AI posts outside of a community made for AI generated pictures than in the 2 years i have used lemmy

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          That’s because this is the first time AI comics have been passable. The quality simply wasn’t there before.

          Yeah humans are still far better, but this could be considered “good enough”.

    • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      I think the point of this comic in particular is to show that AI is already taking over art but since it’s done badly, at what cost is it taking over these jobs?

  • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    6 days ago

    The rich will always have money to pay better people to make beautiful things for them

    Just be useful to the rich and you’ll survive

    Just like they planned it

      • Suite404@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        I just watched a movie (Geostorm) where these obviously super wealthy people were in a skyscraper and the movies like “oh no, they might die if no one stops this!”

        Good? I’m more concerned about all the people below them getting swept away. These rich fucks should finally feel fear for fucking once.

  • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 days ago

    I wanted robots to do my menial unpleasant chores for me so I’d have more time to do art, writing, and analytics. I didn’t want robots to do all the art, writing, and analytics so I had more time for chores & menial tasks 😭

  • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    When I see these kinds of posts I just look over at the vibe coders and just laugh harder than any joke about ai taking our jobs

    • ZeroOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Except Vibe-Coders are kicking back & sipping margaritas & your job is still gone

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 days ago

        I was extremely skeptical so I looked into it and it absolutely does not work. There was also a guy on YouTube who basically tried to make a Minecraft clone with Vibe coding and it just fell apart almost instantly.

        All I was trying to do was get it to set up a basic scene in UE5 with some lighting effects and import a model of the building from the assets library. Nope, did not work. I didn’t even bother trying to implement game logic as it was so clearly a waste of time. The amount of time I spent trying to get it to do basic stuff, stuff that you would be able to do in UE5 after half an hour of training, I could have made significant progress on a gray box by then.

      • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        Lol. Vibe coders aren’t taking anyone’s job. There have always been shitty engineers and now we just call them vibe coders.

  • Emerald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Meanwhile my (college btw) teacher suggests us to use ChatGPT if we need help. Bro wants to replace himself.

      • Drew@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        I think folks are genuinely unable to tell. The poster, who’s also a mod, did not know it was AI generated

  • ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Everyone thinks their own line of work is safe because everyone knows the nuances of their own job. But the thing that gets you is that the easier a job gets the fewer people are needed and the more replaceable they are. You might not be able to make a robot cashier, but with the scan and go mobile app you only need an employee to wave a scanner (to check that some random items in your cart are included in the barcode on your receipt) and the time per customer to do that is fast enough that you only need one person, and since anyone can wave a scanner you don’t have much leverage to negotiate a raise.

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      And that’s a good thing, if and only if you provide pathways to other jobs or phase workers out slowly i.e. by retirement.

        • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          I have had a number of conversations with relatively reasonable conservatives, where I’ve brought up the dangers of so many jobs moving toward automation with no additional job creation. And steering the conversation carefully, I got them to at least consider the idea of UBI funded by taxing any and all automation. I also got them (with the “everybody should have to work, people shouldn’t get life handed to them for free” mentality) to agree that the rise in automation should mean people working less hours each, so everyone still has jobs (basically, UBI and changing “full time” to 25 or 30 hours, where people get overtime past that… creating more jobs while peoples needs are still covered).

          It’s amazing, sometimes, how starting with some similar premises (people should have to work, which I mostly agree with) and shared threat (automation taking jobs) can lead to some more open minds for things that they would otherwise be adamantly against.

    • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      This is the lump of labor fallacy. The error you are making is assuming that there is a fixed quantity of work that needs to be performed. When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices. This enables more people to afford those services. There’s a reason people don’t own just 2 or 3 sets of clothes anymore.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices.

        I’m sorry, but that’s some hilarious Ayn Rand thinking. Prices didn’t go down in grocery stores that added self-checkout, they just made more profit. Companies these days are perfectly comfortable keeping the price the same (or raising them) and just cutting their overhead.

        Don’t get me wrong, if there are things they could get more profit by selling more, then they likely would. But I think those items are few and far between. Everything else they just make more money with less workers.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Are you sure self checkout is actually a labor-saving device? Does it actually save costs on net, once you factor in increased theft and shrinkage? Remember, just because companies adopt something, doesn’t mean it’s actually rational to do so. Executives are prone to fads and groupthink like anyone else. And moreover, this is a bit of an inappropriate example for two reasons. First, the demand for groceries is relatively fixed. Even if the price of groceries was cut in half, you probably wouldn’t suddenly double the calories you consume. Second, self checkout is a small marginal cost to the cost of goods in grocery and retail stores. Self checkout doesn’t improve the actual production process of the goods being sold in a store.

          But I’m sorry, yes, you can cherry pick a few examples. But the general rule is and always has been that increased automation leads to lower prices. This is the entire story of the Industrial Revolution. People used to own only two or three outfits, as that’s all they could afford. A “walk in closet” was an absurdity 200 years ago. The clothing industry industrialized, and the cost of clothing was driven to the floor, completely contradicting what your model predicts. The 19th century textile barons didn’t mechanize production and then simply pocket the savings.

          Hell, the only reason you can afford any kind of consumer electronics is because of automation. The computer, phone, or tablet you’re using now? It would cost 100x as much without automation. This is why niche electronics like specialized lab instruments cost so much money. If you’re only building a few of something for a tiny market, you can’t invest in large scale automation to bring the cost down.

          Look at how quickly and dramatically the price of LiDAR has declined. LiDAR was once the purview of specialized engineering and scientific instruments. But because of driver assistance technologies, the demand for LiDAR has exploded. This allowed LiDAR manufacturers to invest in more automated production chains. They didn’t automate and keep charging the same price, as you would assume.

          For an example of this in a white collar field, consider something like architecture. How many people actually hire an architect to custom design them a home? Very few. Most people buy mass produced tract homes. Tract homes benefit from a lot of automation and economies of scale, so they’re cheaper than one-off custom-built homes designed by architects. Yet if an architect could rely on specialized AI systems to vastly lower the number of hours required to design a set of home plans, they could charge less. Many more people would then be able to afford the services of an architect.

          Yes, you can cherry pick a few examples of industries that have little competition or fixed demand, where they automate without substantially lowering prices. But even those big box stores with their automated checkouts are examples of automation lowering prices. There’s a reason the giant chains can charge less for products than small mom-and-pop shops. A giant grocery chain is big enough to invest in a lot of automation and other economies of scale that a small co-op can’t afford.

          • Dimi Fisher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            In some extent this is true and correct, but when it comes to automate individual thought and creation then ethical problems arise which should be looked at and asserted carefully and with dignity, because there should be boundaries on how much automation can extent in human life, in the end humanity does not compete with anybody except itself, we are humans trying to live and most of all communicate with each other, Jobs are also a way to communicate and socialise but as we already saw they try to take that away in any way they can.

    • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Those images look nothing alike unless you stop looking beyond the contrasted regions… Which, fair enough, could indicate someone taking the outline of the original, but you hardly need AI to do that (Tracing is a thing that has existed for a while), and it’s certainly something human artists do as well both as practice, but also just as artistic reinterpretation (Re-using existing elements in different, transformative ways).

      It’s hard to argue the contrast of an image would be subjective enough to be someone’s ownership, whether by copyright or by layman’s judgement. It easily meets the burden of significant enough transformation.

      It’s easy to see why, because nobody would confuse it with the original. Assuming the original is the right, it looks way better and more coherent. If this person wanted to just steal from this Arcipello, they’re doing a pretty bad job.

      EDIT: And I doubt anyone denies the existence of thieves, whether using AI or not. But this assertion that one piece can somehow make sweeping judgements about multi-faceted tech by this point at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are using, from hobbyist tinkerers to technical artists, is ridiculous.

      • ArtificialHoldings@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        AI can absolutely produce copyrighted content if it’s prompted to. Name drop an artist in Midjourney and you will be able to prompt their style - see this list of artists and prompted images. So you can just tweak the settings a bit to heavily weight their name, generally describe the composition of the work you’re looking to approximate, and you can absolutely produce something close to their original works.

        The image is wrong because the original artwork is not stolen. It is part of a dataset by LAION (or another similar dataset, basically a text-image pair where the image is linked at its original source). To train the imagegen, its company had to download a temporary copy, which is exempt from infringement by copyright law. There is no original artwork somewhere in a database accessible by Midjourney, just the numerical relationship generated by the image-text pair it learned from.

        On the other hand, AI can obviously produce content in violation of copyright - like here. But that’s specifically being prompted by the user. You can see other examples of this with Grok generating Mickey Mouse and Simpsons characters. As of right now, copyright violations are the legal responsibility of the users generating the content - not the AI itself.

        • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I think you meant to respond to someone else, as I pretty much agree(d) with everything you’re saying and have not claimed otherwise. In fact in my very post I did say in more layman terms it was very likely this person used img2img or controlnet to copy the layout of the image, I think it’s less likely they got something this similar unguided, although it’s possible depending on the model or by somehow locking the prompt onto the original work.

          But the one point I do disagree with is that this is a violation of copyright, as I explained before. For it to be a violation it would need to look substantially more similar to the original, the one consistent element between the two is the rough layout of the image (the contrasted areas), for the rest most of the content is very different. You notice the similarity of the contrasted area much more easily by it being sized down so much.

          I hope you understand, as you seem to be more knowledgeable than the people that downvoted without leaving a comment, but you are allowed to use ideas and concepts from others without infringing on their work, as without it the creative industry literally couldn’t function. And yes, this is the responsibility on anyone using these models to avoid.

          This person skirts too close in my eyes by pretty much 1:1 copying the layout, but it’s almost certainly still fine as again, a human doing this with an existing piece of work would also be (eg. the many replica’s / traces of the Mona Lisa).

          Hell, if you take a look at the image in this very lemmy post, which was almost certainly taken from someone else, it has a much better case of copyright infringement, since it has the same layout, nearly identical people in the boxes, general message and concepts.

          But in the end, copyright is different per jurisdiction and sometimes even between judges. Perhaps there is a case somewhere. It’s just (in my opinion) very unlikely to succeed based on the limited elements that are substantially similar.

          EDIT: Added the section about the Mona Lisa replica’s for further clarification.

          • ArtificialHoldings@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            Hm yeah on second look the images aren’t as comparable as I expected. I just saw the general composition in the thumbnails and assumed more similarity. I do think they probably prompted the original artist in the generated work, though, which kind of led to my thoughts in my op.

            • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Yeah that’s also fair enough conclusion, I think it’s a bit too convenient the rest of the image looks a lot worse (Much more clear signs of botched AI generation) while the layout remains pretty much exactly the same, which to me looks like selective generation.

      • Dimi Fisher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You are speaking bollocks, there are already many lawsuits by artists against the so called Ai engines, there are boundaries on how much you can copy from a specific artwork, logo, design or whatever, for example if you take the coca cola logo and slightly change it even if it doesn’t say coca cola you will still face the laws of copyright infringement, nobody denies the existence of thieves, so that’s why people do whatever they can to protect their work

        • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Lawsuits, yes. But a lawsuit is not by default won, it is a assertion for the court to rule on. And so far regarding AI, none have been won. And yes, there are boundaries on when work turns into copyright infringement, but those have specific criteria, and regions of contrast do not suffice by any measure. Yes, even parts of the Coca Cola logo can be reinterpreted without infringing. Why do you think so many off brands skirt as close as possible to it without infringing?

  • WarpScanner@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    Cooking is something that requires advanced robotics or some kind of heavily modular factory-like automated meal production line, not AI. Though AI certainly could assist in the development of such.

    Drivers are being actively replaced right before our eyes.

    A lot of Lawyer work is already being heavily automated, even without AI. Outside of that its “technically” replaceable with AI but on a literal legal level not likely currently possible. I think automating some aspects of being a lawyer might be beneficial but certain elements would be down right dystopian if fully automated.

    Doctor work being automated is also already being done, but this is arguably a very good thing, as it maybe holds the key to a lot of medical breakthroughs and might unlock the potential to sort all that personal medical data people collect ever since that became a thing. And largely might help significantly reduce the cost of highly effective personal healthcare, given sufficient time.

    Teacher work probably could be partially automated but getting kids to pay attention to a lesson, discipline, safety, etc would likely require a human to be around if only for liability.

      • WarpScanner@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah, Artificial Intelligence is pretty broad category of technologies, even so, robotics and automation is not AI. You could pair a robot or an automated factory with an AI of some kind, or use an AI to design them, and they’re related to each other in that they involve computer technology. Still, not the same thing.

        A robotic arm in an car factory is a robot, but it doesn’t have AI in it, they’re usually given a set of commands to repeat.

        A rube goldberg machine is technically automated once initialized. Its not AI.

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Oh man is translation not possible with AI. You have no idea how little languages have in common. A lot of terms don’t mean a thing, but combine concepts you don’t have or associate to point at a thing.

    My dad said, about learning a new language, ‘‘cat means cat, not gato, don’t translate’’ and I think that holds up pretty well from my experience.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Oh man is translation not possible with AI.

      i mean, it’s pretty good at it? A lot of human translators even struggle with the same problem, the AI is just a lot faster, and significantly more versatile. That’s arguably one of it’s strongest areas of performance, is translation, because it’s so well suited to it.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You think it’s OK because it spits out grammatically correct language on your end, but if you spoke both languages you’d get how it fails. Look at translations of Korean comics if you’d like to see how badly mechanical translation is when it’s a connected story across multiple chapters, I was reading a comic where a character said he liked the elegant and sophisticated sound of calling a lightning strike skill ‘‘bolt’’ instead of whatever he was calling it ‘‘lighting strike’’ I think. It took me a while to realize what or whoever translated it didn’t know how to look at the context of the translation and find a English word that English speakers would find at least old fashioned if not archaic and of course longer or more poetic sounding. It’s like the whole thing when JRPGs can’t figure out if they should localize names by just spelling out the phonetic sounds in Roman letters or actually translating the meaning of the name, or a thing no one’s ever done and find a name in a European language family that has the same meaning.

        Just like the AI art, it’s not replacing good translation, it’s replacing hack job translations, it’s replacing mediocre and predictable art. I really don’t care if someone uses AI in the pre-production or some post production functions, just not the part you need a human for, the actual creativity, there’s an adage in 3D animation ‘‘it you let the computer do it, it’s gonna suck.’’ You can let the computer do inbetweens, but you better be giving it nothing near a key frame. It has to really be the very least important frames.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          i know extremely well the limitations of it, i’m just saying that it has utility, and very clearly provides a useful service.

          Certainly better than hiring a translator privately to read something you’re moderately curious about, or to talk with one person. Though if you’re professionally translating something, you should obviously hire someone for it.

      • Gibibit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        AI currently completely does not understand the context of translation when it comes to visual media. Whereas a human translator can use that for additional interpretation

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          this is a pretty big limitation, but i think you would struggle a lot, using an AI to translate something like that, as opposed to a text block, which is mostly what it’s used for these days. It serves a purpose, i’m not saying it should replace professional translators, i just think people don’t necessarily realize there are two primary blocks of usage for these things.

      • itslola@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        It’s still doing a consistently poorer job than a skilled translator, because it has no concept of nuance or tone. I encounter people getting themselves worked up over information in AI-translated news articles, so I go back to the source material and discover it’s mistranslated, under-translated, or just completely omitted parts of sentences. It’s very Purple Monkey Dishwasher.

        The quality is better than it was a decade ago, sure, but that’s a pretty low bar. Back then it was gibberish, nowadays it’s natural-sounding phrases with incorrect translations.

        • Mikrochip@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          And yet, translators are losing their jobs left and right, from what I hear. Sure, quality has gone down, but most people don’t seem to care. Plus, in a lot of cases, instead of the AI doing all the work, translators proof-read AI generated texts and correct the worst mistakes. Fewer translators can translate more at a lower price this way.

          Does the quality still go down a bit that way? Probably. But again, who cares? Not the people spending money on translations, that’s for sure.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          this is true, but for the average person, who just wants to translate something to make it make somewhat sense, it’s great.

          Though yeah, you can’t really trust it, there’s a lot of intricacies.

    • HiddenLychee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I mean given that “AI” are language models built on context and relations between words I’d argue that that’s one of the more applicable jobs compared to what’s listed in OP. With none of them is it capable of doing well, but I just wouldn’t argue that translation is outside that realm of what’s listed above

      • Nangijala@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        The problem is that the AI doesn’t understand cultural context. I dunno where you’re from so pardon me for assuming you’re likely an English speaker.

        A good translation isn’t just to translate what the text says but to communicate the same idea to the reader or viewer within their cultural context. A good example is Disney’s Aladdin where Robin Williams improvised A LOT during the recording sessions and most of his jokes are full of contemporary American cultural context. I’m Danish and most Danish kids didn’t understand these American jokes so our translators decided to switch out some jokes with other jokes that conveyed similar points but within a Danish cultural context.

        An AI cannot do that. It will translate what is written and it will be fucking nonsense to the receiver because they don’t understand the context or the references.

        AI is only good at translating as long as what is written can be translated 1:1. And even then I sometimes wonder. Because as a Dane I have noticed how terrible Word is at Danish when it comes to corrections. It follows English language context and will underline correct words in red and suggest alternative that aren’t real Danish. For example, Danish words are slammed together while in English they are separated = skolelærer - school teacher. Word could very well decide to red line skolelærer and suggest to you that you should separate the word and make it two = skole lærer. But in Danish that would nullify the meaning. Now it is no longer a school teacher but a school and a teacher.

        And I have seen on streaming services like Netflix and on steam how they lazily threw descriptions into a translator and it is just the most broken Danish I have ever read. It is so fucked because the newer generations of Danes who use these services are being influenced by them to learn incorrect Danish.

        I have very limited trust in AI to do a better job at it since it isn’t Danish people that have trained it and it doesn’t understand our culture, our history nor how we communicate with one another. Everything that comes out of digital text based platforms from the US is our language filtered and massacred through US context. It is very very bad in my opinion and incredibly lifeless and soulless.

        It would be the same the other way around btw. Me writing a piece of text with significant Danish cultural context and humor, slang and references would be translated into total nonsense for an English speaker, I’m sure.

    • batu@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      You can’t be serious, buddy. I’m translating an entire episode with ai and it’s turning out better than the Netflix translation!

      • Hoimo@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        How could you even determine that? And if you have a translation available and you know what’s wrong with it, why wouldn’t you simply fix the mistakes? What do you need the AI for?

        Spoiler

        Netflix subs are often quite shit, so I don’t doubt that you could improve them, with or without the help of an LLM.

      • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        I worked for a huge software company who spent boatloads of money trying to to get AI to do translation, interpretation or localization and I can confirm with the absolute authority of someone who watched that dumpster fire first hand that AI will NOT be taking those tasks for a while.

        If you’re not knowledgeable about the topic you should comment about it.

        • Prime_Minister_Keyes@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          If you’re not knowledgeable about the topic you should comment about it.

          Has this also been translated by an AI, or am I missing the point?

          • Frosty_Pieces@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            You’re missing the point. You’re so woefully uneducated on the topic you don’t understand how Google translate was around for ages and didn’t replace interpretation, translation or localization. Why do you think that is? Maybe you should do some research there.

            • batu@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              So, no one mentioned Google Translate. Are you guys seriously relying on Google Translate? Plus, your grammar is, uh, perfect.