Many fear that AI is going to take jobs. It is a valid concern since it is already starting.

About a couple weeks ago that OpenAi introduced ChatGPT 4.o. In the demonstration, one of the things shown was the ability to engage, verbally, in a conversation. It was evident from that point that jobs in call centers will go away. There is no reason to hire people. ChatGPT 4.o can be trained on the company's information and handle almost all the calls that come in. With the exception of the few outliers, the machine can handle this.

It is happening all over the place. The reason why it is not widespread is due to the fact we are just getting started. The technology is in the early stages yet we are rapidly advancing. We will see an obliteration in some industries due to the pace of change that is presented.

Image generated by Ideogram

AI, Art And Jobs

One of the major issues is the arrogance of many. They buy into their self-importance and that what they do is special. The reality is exactly the opposite.

For years we heard how AI will not be creative. This is being proven false as we are seeing. Those who are espousing that seem to believe that human input is required to equate to creativity.

Here is the problem with this viewpoint. Creativity is nothing more than taking existing knowledge and rearranging it in a different way.

For example, a musician knows the chords. He or she had played thousands of songs. When coming up with something new, it is using existing knowledge.

We see the same thing with writing a book. Our knowledge of language and the imagery it pertains to is used to come up with things in a different manner.

I remember watching Bob Ross shows as a kid. The guy would start with a blank canvas and, by the end of the show, have a wildlife scene. What is interesting is that he knew how to paint the birds, clouds, ponds, and mountains. He was not creating anything in that sense. Sure, over the years he likely learned some techniques but when he put a painting together, it was simply a rearranging of what he knew.

While AI cannot paint as of yet, it can do a lot of things. This means that jobs which were once thought as too "artistic" are also in jeopardy.

This, naturally, will only accelerate as the technology gets better.

Here is a video that discusses the music industry:

https://inleo.io/threads/view/taskmaster4450le/re-leothreads-33ba2sm35

The problem with this is that, while the quality might not be up to the level of many, it is good enough for many. What this means is consider all the places we see music. Does it matter that it is AI generated?

One topic I came across is the idea of producing score for movies. Evidently, there is a site where the jobs were listed. It is now empty. We know Hollywood is turning to AI. This is an example of where we are seeing it.

How often do you focus upon the background music during a film. It is there for effect, to enhance the mood of the scene. This is not a focal point meaning that AI generation if sufficient.

Of course, many will not accept this notion. Well, YouTube disagrees with you.

That platform is the top streaming site. It outpaces Disney, Netflix, and Paramount. For the most part, this is nothing more than social video. Very little on there rivals the movie studios for quality yet people watch.

Why?

The short answer is because it is good enough. For 7-15 minutes, it doesn't have to match the quality of a feature length film.

If we want to go a step further, look at TikTok. Those videos are 60-90 seconds and shot on a phone. Yet the platform gets people watching for hours.

But It Isn't Art

Many will claim that AI art isn't art. They will say it is a travesty. One cannot claim to "create" something when a machine did it.

If that is the case, how come people consider photography to be art. After all, if I snap a photo of a family, the machine is doing the work. I press a few buttons, changing a few settings, and presto, I have a family portrait.

Ironic that there was a time when highly talented artists painted those. It is likely why only the wealthiest (and royalty) had then done. The camera allowed many more images to be taken as compared to painting.

Yet someone, even though done by a machine, it is art.

Of course, we NOW take over 2 trillion photos per year. They are abundant. Most are nothing that the world could do without but we take them anyway. We also post them for others to see.

People will fight it to the point they get run over by it.

Disruption can often take place at a slow pace. As shown in the past, Hollywood is in the process of imploding due to disruption. This has nothing to do with AI since that is the next wave. Instead, it is dealing with the fallout of the Internet and the breakup of the monopoly in video distribution the industry enjoyed.

This is starting at the fringes and will eventually move into the mainstream. After all, AI Will Cut Cost of Animated Films by 90%, Jeff Katzenberg Says. We can expect much of this savings to come at the expense of those working in the industry.

Actually, this is why Hollywood is starting to see an implosion. When technology democratizes the ability to create video or music that is sufficient for most purposes, new entrants enter the market.

That is likely what we will see over the next couple of years.

It starts slowly and then will spread. Many industries are going to face the same situation by the end of the decade.

---

What Is Hive

Posted Using InLeo Alpha