• just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s a a bit too absolute way to look at it.

    From their point of view the goal isn’t to abolish human involvement, but to minimise the cost. So if they can do the job at the same quality with a quarter of the personnel through AI assistance for less cost, obviously they’re gonna do that.

    At the same time, just because humans having crappy jobs is the current way we solve the problem of people getting money, doesn’t mean we should keep on doing that. Basic income would be a much nicer solution for that, for example. Try to think a bit less conservatively.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      but to minimise the cost

      What about the cost to the environment? That cost is just a negative externality to them and you, apparently. Yet I’m the one accused of thinking “conservatively.”

      Burning ten times as many fossil fuels to “minimise the costs” is literally fucking stupid and short-sighted.

      • Elvith Ma'for
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        In the end it’s about money. If one had to pay for environmentally damages (e.g. a new tax on $energyUnit, $resourceUnit,…) and you’d not only pay for the resources + some markup for the producing company and just external externalize the “worth” of the damages (read: the taxpayer,…), then it’s cheaper to use these services instead of humans.