Things AI can do

[Stuart Dren]

AI is very seductive. My experience as a teacher has taught me that there are always certain individuals who always look for an easy way out. It's not that these individuals cannot do these things on their own - indeed it would probably be a more rewarding and soul-gratifying experience - but short cuts seem to appeal to many people. I'm just not sure that there is a short cut to producing art.

These discussions can spiral quickly because parties don't agree on what it is philisophically e.g. you wouldn't consider a word processor, spell checker, art program with stylus and effects, or even camera to be the "easy way out."

The pro AI argument is that it's merely another innocuous tool. The anti-AI position is that it's different this time. I lean towards the latter but instead of taking my own advice here (don't focus on differences, focus on things we agree on) I was being a bit of a ass.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I was being a bit of a ass.

Not at all. It's refreshing to see people stick to principles, despite the opposition.

word processor, spell checker,

That's not the kind of AI I mean. (Although, I think any good writer should have a grasp of grammar!) But writers who run their writing through AI and ask the AI about coherency and character reactions. My goodness, if the writer doesn't know this, they are no writer.

 

[Pyroglyphian]

But writers who run their writing through AI and ask the AI about coherency and character reactions. My goodness, if the writer doesn't know this, they are no writer.

A writer should develop the ability to critique their work; otherwise, we seem at risk of a Dunning–Kruger effect. Perhaps the key word is “develop.” Writers aren’t born fully formed, and the writer who feels they've no more to learn perhaps wasn’t much of a writer in the first place.

AI offers some benefit in that it can provide quick feedback and be prompted toward different interpretations. This adds to its "seductiveness" I think, as you said. It also has some disadvantages in that it's trained on material that reflects the biases of the period, so it may work to reinforce inequity.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

AI is very seductive. My experience as a teacher has taught me that there are always certain individuals who always look for an easy way out. It's not that these individuals cannot do these things on their own - indeed it would probably be a more rewarding and soul-gratifying experience - but short cuts seem to appeal to many people.

Yes, but you don't need AI for that. If there's anything that working in accounts for nearly 20 years taught me, it's that some people -- certainly not everyone, and probably not even most, but some -- will do and say anything, absolutely anything, to avoid paying their bills.

I'm sure Homer (and other people in the hospitality industry) have encountered similar people, who will do and say anything if it would score them a free meal, a comped meal, a free dessert, or anything for free. (Have you met my friend, who claims he's allergic to something when he means that he doesn't like it? Or my other friend, Mr. "There's A Hair In My Soup" when all the waiters and cooks are bald? Etc. Etc.)

Again, that's not to say that everyone is like that. Allergies are very real, and of course they have to be taken seriously ... which is exactly why people who fake allergies just piss me off.

Anyway, people like that have an exaggerated sense of their own importance and a sense of entitlement that makes them the Main Character and everyone else mere Supporting Players. These people change a light bulb is by holding onto it and expecting the universe to revolve around them. Like I said: you don't need AI for that.

What, bitter and cynical? Moi?

I'm just not sure that there is a short cut to producing art.

There isn't. As the story goes, the mathematician Euclid (who invented geometry) was tasked with teaching it to Ptolemy (one of Alexander the Great's generals, who became King of Egypt and founded the Ptolemaic Dynasty).

Ptolemy was impatient with Euclid, and demanded to know if there was a faster and easier way to learn mathematics.

Euclid's famous answer was: "Sire, there is no Royal Road to learning."

The same lesson came nearly 1,900 years later, when the Polish pianist Ignace Jan Paderewski performed for Queen Victoria. She was so enraptured that she declared, "Why, Mr. Paderewski -- you are a genius!"

"Perhaps, Your Majesty," Paderewski replied humbly. "But before that, I was a drudge."

In my roundabout way, I agree. If you want to acquire a skill or deep understanding of something, wealth or social status are irrelevant. You need patience, perseverance, and practice. That's the only way to Carnegie Hall.

 

[Stuart Dren]

I'm sure we're all aware of the vast amount of software or services that are specifically marketed to early aspirant fiction writers. There's an ocean of how-to books as well, whose authors are typically not all that successful themselves. It's like all the specialty jigs sold to woodworkers. Hobbyists always have cash to burn. I also wonder if some of these vendors are jaded enough to view their own customers as marks.

Then you meet someone who is successful in the industry. "Oh I used the word processor that came with my operating system, whatever that's called."

 

[Rigor Mortis]

There was a while a little while ago when the algorhythm flooded all my internet access points with variations of generative AI that would write books for me. I'm getting less of that these days. I am getting other things like hose attachments that turn your garden hose into a superpower washer and, my favourite, some device that will manfully correct the links on my chainsaw. Here's two not unconnected facts: 1. I have never attended A&E with body parts missing after a chainsaw incident. 2. I have never operated a chainsaw.

It is a source of some optimism that the current algorhythm has got me so wrong.

 

[ps102]

It is a source of some optimism that the current algorhythm has got me so wrong.

Once, a friend and I were discussing getting my car's ECU chipped for some performance benefits by a locally famous tuning shop. The next hour, his Xiaomi phone kept bothering him with ads about that very specific shop.

Coincidence? I think not.

I also remember when I first got into writing, I did some research on the matter, and Twitter as well as YouTube kept giving me a lot of ads about creative writing coaches and courses.

The funny thing is, whenever I see an ad about anything, I make it a personal mission to never purchase it.

 

[Damage718]

The implication is not that it can do a better job, it's that it can do the same job (not better, not worse) at a fraction of the price. What's unreasonable about that?

Which is exactly why jobs are being replaced in almost every industry. "Why hire someone to do it when AI can do it just good enough?"

Working in digital marketing, I work with AI daily. It's a useful tool, but shouldn't be a replacement for people because you still need humans to properly prompt, and then edit (see: humanize) the output. Admittedly, AI is really good for research, brainstorming and getting to draft one quicker. But it all reads very similar and doesn't have much human context and emotion. Of course I'm talking about writing and creative work, which is different than some administrative and financial tasks, which are now being handled by AI agents in many companies instead of paying humans to do it.

Manufacturers, warehouses, call centers, even medical, are increasingly relying on automation and predictive maintenance that can be overseen by many fewer, if any, people. It is causing, and will continue to cause, many people to need work but there aren't enough jobs.

So while AI is useful in many ways, the exact sentiment in your post is also the very real threat of it.

 

[Damage718]

Me too! Then the price of healthcare and energy doubled, my furnace needed replacing, and AI started wiping out jobs left and right. All of which led Uncle Homer to conclude that a reduction in income by trying something new might not be the smartest idea in 2026.

Honestly, the AI is terrifying. Jobs that shouldn't be replaceable in my industry are disappearing. Now is not the time to start playing musical chairs. And the younger end of the Baby Boomers is realizing they can't retire either and are unexpectedly scrambling back into the workplace, so I have them to compete with as well.

Having said that, I'm just dipping my toe in the water. I started feeling useless this week, so brushing up the credentials and sending out feelers made me feel like a functional human again.

But.... I have a baaaaaaaaaaaad feeling about shit right now.

Sorry you're dealing with all that. Many folks are, and we're all one step away from being in the same boat. Working in a digital marketing agency, I'm always half a step from the chopping block. It's a volatile industry anyway, but AI is making it more sensitive. We use it as a tool and it is helpful, but its greatly affecting all our clients' industries too (manufacturing, oil & gas, chemical, medical, logistics, automotive, etc.)

The Silver Tsunami is right on deck, too, so many people will be retiring (lucky them) and taking all their institutional knowledge with them. Many companies' answer to this is to hire less, or not at all, and save money where they can because AI can do many jobs "just as good" as a human. This adds to a workplace with too many candidates and not enough jobs.

I have a couple close friends, one who just retired and another who will retire in two years and I seriously get pissed when they talk about it. While I'm happy for them, it bugs me because I'll never be able to retire myself. Not enough money saved up and most of my professional experience is in work that is getting way younger, faster, and more automated. So I'm screwed. Death Before Destitution is my retirement plan

 

[Homer Potvin]

Sorry you're dealing with all that. Many folks are, and we're all one step away from being in the same boat. Working in a digital marketing agency, I'm always half a step from the chopping block. It's a volatile industry anyway, but AI is making it more sensitive. We use it as a tool and it is helpful, but its greatly affecting all our clients' industries too (manufacturing, oil & gas, chemical, medical, logistics, automotive, etc.)

The Silver Tsunami is right on deck, too, so many people will be retiring (lucky them) and taking all their institutional knowledge with them. Many companies' answer to this is to hire less, or not at all, and save money where they can because AI can do many jobs "just as good" as a human. This adds to a workplace with too many candidates and not enough jobs.

I have a couple close friends, one who just retired and another who will retire in two years and I seriously get pissed when they talk about it. While I'm happy for them, it bugs me because I'll never be able to retire myself. Not enough money saved up and most of my professional experience is in work that is getting way younger, faster, and more automated. So I'm screwed. Death Before Destitution is my retirement plan

I was hoping to relax for a little bit and potentially pursue a less stressful path of employment, which may still be possible but ain't looking good so far. I'm not even fifty yet so I have plenty of optimal working years left... not that I want to do any of that.

I'm navigating the AI application and screening process right now. It's a fucking joke. Like, laugh out loud funny. I know a few of these companies who use it. There's a correlation between poor business practices and AI dependency. I'm in the food service and hospitality industry for fuck's sake. You can't quantify that kind of work experience with an AI. And if you're running a multi-million business that's 100% dependent on human interaction and you're letting a machine cross assets off the list...

I'm coming fully into the Butlerian Jihad camp now.

 

[Damage718]

I was hoping to relax for a little bit and potentially pursue a less stressful path of employment, which may still be possible but ain't looking good so far. I'm not even fifty yet so I have plenty of optimal working years left... not that I want to do any of that.

I'm navigating the AI application and screening process right now. It's a fucking joke. Like, laugh out loud funny. I know a few of these companies who use it. There's a correlation between poor business practices and AI dependency. I'm in the food service and hospitality industry for fuck's sake. You can't quantify that kind of work experience with an AI. And if you're running a multi-million business that's 100% dependent on human interaction and you're letting a machine cross assets off the list...

I'm coming fully into the Butlerian Jihad camp now.

The real shit thing is they're starting to automate many positions previously regarded as human-necessary. Order pickers & stockers at warehouses and even some manufacturing and metalworking positions are literally being handed off to robots. There are already driverless cars and pilotless planes, and soon you'll see robot bartenders, waitstaff, and janitorial/maintenance. It's fucking absurd.

 

[Homer Potvin]

soon you'll see robot bartenders, waitstaff,

These I am much less concerned about. They don't fit into preexisting structures and can't be supported by preexisting infrastructure. Theoretically, you can build new restaurants with automation from the git, but they are cost prohibitive for low profit industries like restaurants. I know the Japanese have some whacky shit over there, but we can't even fit modern dish machines behind most bars here.

 

[big soft moose]

One often unconsidered element is that an automated order picker can’t do anything else, where as a minimum wage warehouse monkey can pick, pack, load lories, act as a reversing guide, halt traffic for a lorry to leave, mop floors, clean up spills, put waste in skips etc

You could create a robot able to do all of the above but it would cost far more than hiring a warehouse man

 

[defaux]

One often unconsidered element is that an automated order picker can’t do anything else, where as a minimum wage warehouse monkey can pick, pack, load lories, act as a reversing guide, halt traffic for a lorry to leave, mop floors, clean up spills, put waste in skips etc

You could create a robot able to do all of the above but it would cost far more than hiring a warehouse man

Now I'm picturing Zorg from Fifth Element and his crew of little cleaning robots.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Now I'm picturing Zorg from Fifth Element and his crew of little cleaning robots.

I just had a thought about the title: the actual fifth element is boron, so how many chemistry students stayed away from the film because it was boron?

And to come back to the point of the thread: the many AI clients, like ChatGPT (and its precursors, like Eliza), are programmed to try and pass the Turing test. Key strategies to passing this test are:

1. Natural Language Processing (NLP): Leveraging large language models that understand nuance, idioms, and emotional context.
2. Adopting Personas: Using a specific persona (e.g., a child or someone with limited knowledge) can help mask technological perfection, which humans often lack.
3. Simulating Imperfection: Humans make mistakes, lose the thread of conversation, and use conversational pauses. AI should mimic this lack of perfect knowledge and recall.
4. Emotional and Social Understanding: Incorporating empathy and humor, and discussing personal experiences, can convince judges of human-like consciousness.
5. Using Evasion or Deflection: If a question is too complex, acting confused or deflecting (e.g., "I don't know, what do you think?") can make the conversation more believable.

I don't think I've seen an AI client yet that has done either #3 or #4 (and for that matter, one that does #5 convincingly). But that's not to say that an AI might be able to do this one day.

If it did, would we be able to say that this AI possesses 'consciousness' or 'sentience'? For that matter, if the AI's job was to run a spaceship (like HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Eddie the Shipboard Computer in HHGTTG), would you prefer a 'conscious' or 'sentient' AI program to run your spaceship, or one that got things right and skipped the humour and/or empathy?

This isn't just a theoretical question. Human beings already do many jobs that an AI client can do, and also many jobs that an AI client might be able to do. But would you prefer an AI client to a human? Or, for that matter, would you choose an empathetic and/or humorous but slightly klutzy AI to a competent human -- or, vice versa, a competent AI over an empathetic and/or humorous person, a bit dim sometimes but fun to share a beer with?

Just an idea. Could be an idea for a story, even.