If they make a model that's good enough to actually take away jobs rather than merely making everyone more productive — is it a tool or a human level AI, I'm not sure either way though I lean toward the latter — the only possible compensation is UBI… which they're funding research into.
> plus, there was no consent.
I agree with you about this. That's a different problem, but I do agree.
It’s not a matter of “is it good enough to replace humans”, as despite all of us here knowing it’s not, we could list many companies (and even industries) where it’s already happening
That comment is self-contradicting. If it's already replacing humans, then economically speaking (which is what matters for economic harm), it's good enough to replace those specific humans.
The reason I'm not sure how much this tech really is at the level of replacing humans in the workplace, is that there's always a lot of loud excitement about new tech changing the world, and a lot of noise and confounding variables in employment levels.
But if it is actually replacing them, then it must be at the level of those employees in the ways that matter.
„In the ways that matter” and the only way that matters for a lot of employers is what is cheaper.
This maybe isn’t strictly related to the topic of this post or conversation but a lot of companies have been replacing most, or even all, support channels with AI assistants.
No, it isn’t good enough to replace those humans in a sense most would consider essential - helping customers which reach for the support line, but businesses find it „good enough” in a sense that it’s cheaper than human workers and the additional cost of unhappy customers is small enough to still have it be worth it.
I would agree with you that what counts as "good enough" is kinda hard to quantify (which itself leads into the whole free market vs state owned business discourse from 1848 to 1991), but I do mean specifically from the PoV of "does it make your jobs go away?"
Although now I realise I should be even more precise, as I mean "you singular and jobs plural for now and into the future" while my previous words may reasonably be understood as "you plural and each job is just your current one".
> plus, there was no consent.
I agree with you about this. That's a different problem, but I do agree.