• BigJim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Teachers, drivers, and lawyers are all very replaceable by AI. And, with some investment in automation, so are cooks.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      If you mean proper definition of the word AI, then of course, everyone are, AI by definition can do everything human can.
      If you mean modern slop generators or narrowly trained models, then no, some professionals can use it to make their lives slightly easier, but that’s it.
      Just to be clear, the proper AGI doesn’t exist, and we aren’t closer to the understanding how to achieve it than we were in the age before we discovered electricity. Possibly further, if everyone will continue to be mesmerised by a chatbot

  • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I not sure what personal is, but I’m curious, are there stats on job losses for artists, translators or journalist since AI?

    I would use AI for some tangential stuff, like translating a menu, but not sure how many would use AI in a place where they’d previously hired a translator.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Jobs in journalism have been in decline for decades, the rise of AI is just another nail in the coffin of quality journalism. Hard to prove fault, but it’s not helping.

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 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
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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)

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Automation and job replacement is a good thing. The reason it feels bad is because we’ve tied the ability to satisfy our basic needs to employment. In an economic model that actually isn’t a dystopian hellscape, robots replacing jobs is something to celebrate.

    And to switch our economic model to one in which a person can thrive without pissing the vast majority of our lives away on the grind; we just need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps!

    • This is so important.

      An aspect of post scarcity is that people shouldn’t have to work. AGI might allow that; LLM is starting to fill some niches.

      The problem is how it’s being done. Rather than benefiting society as a whole, it’s enriching a few. In an ideal world, people whose jobs are replaced should get a stipend. We should all be eagerly awaiting that time when our jobs are replaced and we get a paycheck - maybe a little reduced - but now we’re free to pursue our interests. If that means doing your old job, only now it’s bespoke, artisan work, great.

      The other missing factors are free energy and limitless resources; but we’re making progress on energy, but resources are an issue with no solution on the horizon. Plus, we’re killing the planet by just existing, so there’s that.

      We have a lot of problems to solve but AI is part of the solution, except that it’s being done wrong. And expensively.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        but resources are an issue with no solution on the horizon.

        We’ve got tons of resources, and the means the produce more. The problem is that’s not going to make some people lots and lots of money, so they don’t do it.

        Scarcity is not a problem of “can’t” right now, it’s a problem of “won’t”.

        • We’re going to run out of oil in the next 30 years, and it’s not just cars that will affect. The mass produced factory farmed food that feeds 90% of the world’s population is utterly dependent on fossils fuels. There are almost no “Tesla” giant combines. And the trains that transport food to the cities run on fossil fuels. Cities will collapse. Air transport and ocean shipping will cease, destroying the global economy.

          Many of the remaining oil reserves are in deep water, which are each and every one a ma not e environmental catastrophe waiting to happen, and as the easy reserves dry up, offshore drilling will become more common.

          Meanwhile, we’re running out of precious metals needed to make cheap consumer electronics. And white we’re finding new reserves and the finite limit may not be a close, as computers and phone components become more expensive, and only the well-off will be able to afford them. The income disparity we see within our countries will become global, with entire countries falling behind.

          And then there’s fresh water. This will become a bigger problem as time goes on, and water wars will become large scale events.

          We’re living on a finite planet of finite resources. Our only hope for space exploration is a couple of commercial companies run by the 21st century equivalent of robber barons. If we do start mining asteroids for materials, those resources still be utterly monopolized by a single handful of individuals.

          I don’t understand your belief that we still have plenty of resources, when the scientific community has been warning that we’re running through our reserves ever faster, for years.

          • Val@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            Right you got me thinking so here’s my thoughts. Not looking to argue just discuss the points you’ve made.

            1st paragraph:

            Global economy crashing is a good thing. Like you have pointed out it is completely dependent on a non-renewable resource on top of that it is one of the biggest contributors to worldwide exploitation. It also a contributes to cultural colonialism.
            more info: youtube.com/watch?v=4UJSf_oyVAo.

            When it comes to farming. People will come up with solutions. I believe that farmers are competent enough that when we run out of oil they aren’t just going to go. “welp guess I starve now”. They are going to innovate and do what they can to keep going. Also swapping out an ICE motor for an electric one doesn’t seem that complicated.

            Also Interesting that you didn’t mention plastics. The most used oil product in the world. I’ll be so glad when they’re finally gone.

            2nd paragraph is just a continuation of the first.

            3rd paragraph

            The key word in this paragraph is make. We don’t really need to make any more electronics. We’ve already made enough. How many processors do you think are just sitting in some warehouse never to be used because a newer model came out. How much of those precious metals are inside cars that are going to be useless once oil runs out. We need to focus on recycling and reusing existing things and devices instead of making new ones.

            4th paragraph

            Water is a cycle. It doesn’t just disappear. We already recycle most of our water. Although I’m not that knowledgable on the topic so I can’t say much about it.

            5th paragraph

            skip.

            6th paragraph

            The scientific community has made those assertions with the assumption that we are going to keep doing what we’re doing. Mindless consumerism, buying and making new things, and abusing our planet. And they are right. What I and the commenter you’re replying to are (probably) saying is that the problems with resources are caused my how we live our lives and the problem disappears without capitalism, consumerism and the constant resource abuse they create. A more sustainable shift in society and economics will solve these problems

            Also

            I sidestepped you’re points about money, because I am an anarchist. I see capitalism and money as the precise reason for this artificial scarcity and natural abuse. Like you even said in you’re comment even if we get infinite resources in the form of asteroid mining it still won’t be distributed properly due to monopolies. Having more resources won’t fix anything because the problem is the market that distributes them being inefficient due to running entirely on profit motive. The solution is to end capitalism and when we do we are going to find that we have more than enough without needing to do asteroid mining. Where would we even get the fuel? doesn’t that require oil?

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 days ago

              Global economy crashing is a good thing.

              Takes like this are why I think it should be illegal for anyone under the age of 25 to express any opinions about anything whatsoever

              • Val@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 days ago

                I can get everything I need to comfortably live from a 20km radius, or I could If my country hadn’t outsourced clothes production to china. why does my life need to rely on a regime that’s half the planet away while destroying the said planet in the process?

            • Okay, but @Zorque stated that “we have plenty of resources,” and that’s what I was disagreeing with. If your belief is that we need a global famine, more wars, and the collapse of civilization - and that, somehow, if we recreate civilization without access to the easy resources because we already used all those up the first time, we’ll do it better next time… we’ll agree to disagree.

              • Val@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 days ago

                I don’t want global famine and more wars but people seem insistent on creating them so I’m not going to pretend like I can stop them, I’m also not going to pretend like they (the people in power and those who allow them to remain there) somehow aren’t responsible. As for the collapse of Civilization: here’s another video youtube.com/watch?v=k0_w87J9Dj0. If you don’t want to watch. I’ll just ask you one of the main questions of the video: “what is the meaning of civilisation?”. Who does it benefit and why do we need it?

                I don’t want people to suffer. Right now they are. This civilisation is making them suffer. If we could get rid of the poison of archy that plagues this civilisation without destroying it I would be grateful. But the lack of resources is not an issue. It’s a symptom of mindless consumerism and rampant capitalism. If capitalism goes, so does the scarcity.

                My belief is that every person is good, kind-hearted and capable of incredible things. My belief is that greed, cruelty, and everything else that is turning this planet into hell is the fault of the systems we are raised in, the motivations we are given, and how we are treated. If this civilisation ends I won’t care. The cruelty it so efficiently creates has made sure of that. But I’m also don’t actively wish for it because I know it’ll still cause a lot of pain. The only world I’m willing to fight for is one where the power structures that allow idiots to destroy the world don’t exist.

                Also I think civilisation is a lot stronger than people think. Humans are incredibly strong and capable beings. It’s going to take more than the collapse of capitalism (currently synonymous with economy) to destroy civilisation, but then again nukes exist. oh well whatever happens, happens. Not like we had any hope of seeing 2040 anyway.

                • Purple have always suffered, haven’t they? Some more than others, but we’re mostly homo sapiens because we were more successfully violent than our cousins, and we wiped all of the other hominids out. Like, full on genocide. If the world reverts to a state where protections of the Weak don’t exist, the Strong will just become even more dominant - again.

                  This isn’t a cycle we can break without a lot more evolving in a slowly improving society. And I do think we’d been improving, slowly; there have been ups and downs, and it’s been unequal progress globally; and there have been concerning developments in State exercise of powers around there globe; and the US is showing every sign of being in the declining stage of an empire. But if we do a global reset, I don’t believe we’ll ever recover, and the best we can hope for is a small agrarian population full of people whose lives are short, lack advanced medical and dental care, uneducated, and filled with brute labor.

          • Zorque@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            Again, those things are a matter of “won’t” rather than “can’t”. It costs “too much” to find alternatives, so companies don’t. Funding for alternate resources simply don’t exist at the level that’s necessary because it doesn’t make anyone lots and lots of money.

            Those scientists are warning that we should start looking for alternatives, not that we should give up because it’s simply not possible to find an alternative.

            I understand that you don’t want to look further than that, but I judge you for it. Maybe stop taking things at face value and look a little deeper.

            • There is a distinct difference between believing that we can’t, or should give up - which is what you’re accusing me of doing - and recognizing the reality that we aren’t and by all evidence, won’t. Certainly not before it’s too late.

              • Zorque@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 days ago

                and recognizing the reality that we aren’t and by all evidence, won’t.

                That’s… literally what I’ve been saying. Have you been ignoring that? My entire point was about motivation, not ability. Your entire point seems to be that there’s no other options and nothing we can do about it. About how it’s the end of the world and we can’t do anything about it.

                Sure, people aren’t right now, but a big part of that is because people aren’t accepting why. You can go on and on and on about how we’re not, but unless you put the least amount of thought into why and how to do something meaningful about it, it’s just doom-posting to trick people into thinking we should all just give up.

                So. If you want to prove to me, or others, or even to yourself, that that’s not true… maybe start thinking about what we can do, or just shut up. Because we don’t need more people talking about how it’s all pointless and there’s nothing else we can do. We get plenty of that every day from people much smarter than random people on the internet.

            • No. 20 years ago it was “50 years,” so we’re pretty on track.

              More reserves are accessible to us now with modern technology, but it’s being harder, more expensive, and more dangerous to get at. We’re stretching it some, but… do you imagine there’s infinite crude oil in the planet?

      • missingno@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        We have a lot of problems to solve but AI is part of the solution, except that it’s being done wrong. And expensively.

        There’s also a conversation to be had about which jobs shouldn’t be automated, either because current technology isn’t suitable, or because it might never be suitable. And I’d say that pretty much everything that we are calling ‘AI’ right now falls under that - I’ll say that robots are part of the solution, but I don’t think ‘AI’ is.

        • I agree. LLMs are not AGI. But there are some jobs they can do, and a lot of jobs they can assist.

          But I think we’re still another generation of apparent AI stagnation, maybe another 20-30 years, before someone figures out there next link; and that might be AGI.

    • venotic@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      The reason it’s bad is because the political leaders don’t have a grasp about automation and has not made any effort to provide a safe net for people whose jobs got replaced. If UBI was a thing and automation was in full swing, I don’t think there would be a lot of negativity.

  • psx_crab@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    As an automechanic, my job will never replace by AI, but instead we’re fucked by low wages and the black box automobile has slowly become.

    • ben1o@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Translators have and are continuing to lose their jobs. Generative AI-based translations don’t have to be better than human ones for this to happen, they only need to be good enough to cheapen the overall translation process. For example, via post-editing, where AI does the initial translation for a translator to vet. Sure, human translators are still part of the process, but on an industry level the need for human translators has decreased.

      https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/16/survey-finds-generative-ai-proving-major-threat-to-the-work-of-translators

      Sadly, I see the same logic as above applying to many other industries. So our critique of AI must not be predicated on its ability to perform better than humans, but instead on its ability to cheapen the overall cost of tasks performed by humans. This wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if translators were properly supported in career transitioning, or if AI-induced cost savings were directed to something like a universal basic income, but that is not the economic reality we live in under capitalism.

    • psx_crab@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      So does journalist, because their job isn’t only writing article but to go out there to find stories to write, even on the frontline of war. It’s the slob tabloid and “based on source by another press” article getting replaced.

      Artist though, their income is gonna get cut because ai plagiarism mean they’re getting less and less commission.

      • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        That’s half true.

        The problem journalists have is that investigative work and going outside the office is expensive, and with the collapse of print media, most of their jobs have been replace by this slob tabloid/journalism by press release.

        So that’s all at risk.

    • pedz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Fucking YouTube trying to translate everything into shitty French for me.

      ‘The Honey scam’ becomes ‘The honey scam’ in French (L’arnaque du miel), as in honey from bees. The “AI” can’t even make the difference between a common and proper noun.

      Reddit does the same through my Google searches. The original post is in English but Google and Reddit shows it to me in dubious French. It’s quite obvious that it has been machine translated.

      However bad translations unfortunately doesn’t seem to bother a lot of people, nor stop the big corps to push them as much as possible.

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        I saw a similar issue on a product where the Spanish wording obviously came from a computer translation.

        “Made in Turkey” was written as “Hecho en pavo.”

        Pavo is Spanish for turkey, the animal. Turquía is Spanish for Turkey, the country. A human, even a non-fluent speaker such as myself, would never make that mistake.

    • altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      It depends on how the management cares about the result or\and specifically needs someone responsible and with a certain reputation. International communications, e.g. UN sessions or the likes where highly trained humans do parallel translation, wouldn’t be replaced at all, because a slight tonal shift in how they translate political stuff can cause a disasterous misunderstanding. Technical translation in industrial stuff shouldn’t be too, for each sphere has it’s specific bunch of therminology on each side, but here we are. And with arts\media, reputable companies with big money would still hire translators, but some would default to AI-unless-we-called-out mode.

    • sennabecool@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I don’t know in which design field you work, but 4o can already generate impressive saas landing pages at this point. Still bland work but could suffise for some, you should see for yourself.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Technically speaking it’s opposite than in the picture. The professions replaced by robots in the picture are in fact not replacable because they require emotional awareness. On the other hand professions in the picture that represent humans can be replaced by robots because they only require data.

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        This is a mistake that many people will make, and it will be decades before they realize what they’ve done.

        I teach elementary school. While most of the things I’m accountable for on paper are academic, most of my actual time is spent helping my students understand how to be functional humans. Problem-solving skills. Interpersonal skills. Self-control. Empathy. Self-esteem. In early grades, motor skills like how to hold a pencil or use scissors.

        When we put a whole generation of kids in computerized AI schools (because it’s not really an “if” any more), we will see a huge effect in the real world, but probably not until after they graduate and have to start dealing with people in different work environments. And by then, we’ll be totally screwed.

        Of course, the 1% will still have their kids in real schools with real teachers, because they already know that the very products they tout to the masses are actually detrimental to child development.

  • DeusUmbra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I genuinely wonder if at some point someone is going to try to replace my job with AI. I’d be surprised if it worked, but not surprised if anyone is dumb enough to try, considering I do IT work, physically onsite too, so I don’t just reset passwords over the phone or anything, I go to desks and setup equipment, repair hardware, troubleshoot software, the whole nine yards.

    • cokeslutgarbage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I work in horticulture and tend to plants- transplanting into different sized pots, pruning, yknow, physically interacting with plants. I also monitor the environment of the greenhouse- temperature, humidity, amount of water in the soil. Recently my boss has implemented ai and sensors to read the room and adjust the humidity and the temperature and monitor the water levels automatically. It doesn’t work very well, because there arent sensors evwrywhere, and some parts of the greenhouse get better ventilation than others, so the temperature fluctuates. Me and my crew know where the hot spots are, the robots don’t. The plants are suffering. We are doing extra work and killing off more plants on average than we did a few months ago.

      About 1/3 of my crew has quit or been fired over the last year, and none of them have been replaced.

      I’ve asked for a raise because I’m doing a lot more work with a lot less people, but they don’t have the budget for me, since we just implemented all this ai that’s gonna make my job so much easier.

      I got written up for having a bad attitude (aka asking for a raise) and am now on probation at work. I am almost certainly about to lose my physical labor job to a robot and.it is blowing my fucking mind.

      Take care xx

      • Mesophar@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        No job is safe from AI or robotic automation. They might not be able to do it well, but that won’t stop greedy and/or cheap businesses from trying.

      • PlantJam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        You’re one of several people saying this is from AI. I’m more familiar with the AI giveaways in text or fake photos, but not so much with comics. What makes this comic look so obviously AI generated to you?

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          This artistic style is specifically generated by ChatGPT 4o when you ask it to create a comic. You get a feel for it pretty quick once you have seen it a couple times, the same way you think “hey I’ve seen this artist’s work before”.

          The text also looks generated - it’s too consistent to be handwritten, but too sloppy to be a font.

          • PlantJam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            I definitely get generic kids book illustration vibes from it. Most of the comics I see tend to go for a more distinctive art style. I hadn’t even considered the writing, though. Thanks for sharing.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I’m presuming “personal assistant” and it got cut off due to being itself AI-generated slop.

  • SunshineJogger@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    This is incorrect.

    Give AI a few more years and ots a great teacher for adults.

    Baker and lawyer? Easy. As soon as AI get capable robot bodies they can do “homemade food” with robotic efficiency. And knowing legal texts and such stuff? They are machines. Indexing, cross referenceing, contextually identifying and comparing large data will be super easy to them once they get more memory and no l9nger hallucinate information.

    AI is in its infancy.

    People who say AI won’t get as good or better than us humans at basically anything will be in for a hard awakening in about 10 years.

    The humans are basically comparing their industry best against an AI baby learning to walk when looking at potential of growth.

    • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      You missed the point and wrote like 3.5 paragraphs. Maybe AI could summarise for you. I asked Gemini to give it a go:

      This comic strip conveys a cautionary message about the potential overconfidence of humans regarding the irreplaceable nature of their professions in the face of advancing technology, specifically artificial intelligence. Here’s a breakdown:

      • The first five panels show various people confidently stating that their professions (cook, driver, lawyer, doctor, teacher) are inherently human, rely on talent, and therefore cannot be replaced. They seem to believe they are immune to automation or technological disruption.

      • The remaining four panels reveal identical, faceless robots labeled with other professions (personal, journalist, artist, translator). This visually suggests that even roles considered creative, nuanced, or requiring “human touch” are susceptible to being taken over by AI or robots.

      • The humor lies in the dramatic irony. The characters’ confident assertions are juxtaposed with the stark reality of the robots, highlighting the potential for human hubris in underestimating the capabilities of emerging technologies. In essence, the comic warns against complacency and suggests that many professions, even those requiring creativity and human interaction, might not be as safe from automation as people believe. It prompts reflection on the evolving nature of work and the potential impact of AI on various fields.

      • SunshineJogger@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        I see.

        Interesting then that I’ve seen such an very similar image used on reddit in the opposite way.

        So perhaps thats why I expected it to be the same here

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 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
          0
          ·
          8 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
      0
      ·
      8 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?

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I worked with a translator yesterday. She teaches courses, but she said she does translation because the money is good. I’ve worked with her for a while at this point, as well as dozens of other translators, on nearly a daily basis. They’re very much still in demand.

      • 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        We clearly operate in two different job markets, I got paid €9/page (pre taxes) for specialized automotive texts in the 2010s. Not to mention the other violations of the labor laws of my country.

        • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          And this is perhaps me using the wrong term (translator v. interpreter), as I’m talking about speaking and not writing. I can never remember which is which, if there is a distinction.

    • LordAmplifier@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Maybe I’m not super up to date on AI stuff, but I worked as a translator for a year, and AI (they used ChatGPT and DeepL) still made a bunch of mistakes that you’ll immediately notice when you speak the language. It feels like their training input had a bunch of older, Google-translated articles in them that were just bad. Maybe an AI trained specifically for translation with curated learning material and a “teacher” who corrects mistakes can get closer to replacing human translators, but it’d still miss the cultural context of certain words and phrases that are in a translator’s passive vocabulary, at least in less wide-spread languages.

      That being said, it’s definitely harder to make a career out of translating because companies who don’t know any better just use AI instead. As long as they get their point across (and make money), they don’t care about the finer details.

      • takeheart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Sure, a skilled human is still better at the job. But you don’t always need to capture every nuance. And AI does it at the fraction of the cost.

        I see this with lots of German product descriptions on big store fronts like Amazon. They often seem entirely machine translated. It’s not great, but “good enough” and serviceable.

        Machine translation can also increasingly shifts the process from the sender of the message to the recipient. It used to be that the web page of a Vietnamese company was inaccessible if you didn’t speak Vietnamese or they specifically had an English version. Nowadays a visitor can choose to get the entire site translated automatically (by the browser, for instance). Is it as good as the translation by an expert? Of course not. But it costs the company nothing at all and the visitor a negligible amount. And it works for a plethora of languages.

        That’s another (invisible) way that the world needs less and less translators. I wrote this post in English but for all I know someone could be reading it in French or Bengali. No further input required from my side.

        • LordAmplifier@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          That’s true, and especially smaller businesses often can’t afford translation services. If a machine translation can increase their sales, I won’t blame them for using it. I’m just a language nerd who knows nothing about running a business (and I’m not even an actual translator, I just happened to speak the right language at the right time).