A role model for all of us.

And an obvious choice to use as a shining example of how to do things, run your life, etc.

Some great lessons on non-prescription drugs and firearm handling.

Great job article authors.

Future AI will change everything in unpredictable ways.

Pundits, hypemongers and lying salesweasels have their own predictions, usually directed toward investors.

Articles like the one posted are based on speculation about how AI will fit into the old way of doing things.

The real future will be different, very different

Given the persistent difficulties people have encountered in getting bots to perform well enough that they don't require near constant expert supervision when doing anything that actually matters or where errors are a problem; it sounds like cutting off the pipeline that has historically turned entry level people into experts through relevant experience may be the bold way forward in improving the (relative) quality of bots vs. humans. Sure, this improvement will occur by dragging down the quality of the av

Why live life as a human in human culture, when you can sit back and let AI do the living for you?

I've noticed a rather strong thread of disrespect in the 'AI" culture with any profession other than their own.. it is, after all, one of the core appeals of machine learning. Anyway, the thing I am wondering here is if the people pushing to replace creative entry level positions with AI never actually filled those roles themselves, don't understand them, and thus could not even evaluate if the output is correct. I have a much harder time picturing people who actually worked their way up the ranks by doing and understanding the grunt work thinking it is a good idea.

But MBAs, tech bros, and 'owners'? yeah.. that I can see.

"low-level creative jobs offer practice time and pathways for mentorship"

More importantly, ultimately, is they offer pathways to high level creative jobs eventually.

Training an ai offers a pathway to... Nothing.

Working you way up the rungs is how you learn. No one knows what the exact steps are to do something in a work environment the moment you walk in the door. You don't know what is or is not right until you get feedback. It's why it's called learning.

Take that learning away and how does someone know what to tell/direct an AI bot to do? If they've never done the steps before, how do they know what is right or wrong?

As a side note, many "manuals" that come with equipment fall into the last category. Clearly the people "writing" the manual have never done what they're telling you to do. Had they done so, the numerous quirks and confusions wouldn't be there.

And by big surprise, I mean it's a big surprise that someone finally wrote an article pointing out the obvious. The public articles have mostly tried to ignore this part of the AI trend in favor of, "AI is great at everything," messaging up to this point.

We're seeing it here in podunk nowheresville US as well. We hire new programmers, they rely nearly 100% on AI assisted vibe coding to do the simple tasks we give them, and their skills are not improving at the rate they need to to climb into the bigger projects we have waiting for them as they work through the simple bug fixes and version transfers we need them to get through before taking on bigger projects. It's honestly frightening how little these "programmers" are learning, as they let the AI do the coding, and for the most part, the bug fixing. Now, if that made them faster than the folks we used to hire a few years back, that'd be one thing. But it actually seems to slow them down, on top of the fact that they aren't really building a knowledgebase themselves so much as sorting out how to prompt and reprompt the AI they use. And even then, they don't always get the job done until we do a code review meeting where senior devs march them lockstep through what they've bungled thus far to get it functional.

And then we repeat that process over and over. It doesn't seem they're learning, just repeating the same prompt, reprompt, reprompt, have the seniors fix it in review pattern over and over. Where are we going to get solid coders for our next generation? I know the AI companies swear that if we just ignore the problem now they'll get their systems up to par in time to take over the senior positions as we age out, but man, I'm just not seeing that kind of progress coming fast enough to catch us.

In short, as an old timer, I'm continually asking, when it comes to AI? Where's the beef?

A lot of the current concerns around AI very much remind me of the outsourcing trend of the 2000s. Basically keep the senior people in-house, and outsource all the junior positions to some other country with lower wages. It ultimately failed then too, for similar reasons. Too much effort required to review and fix the work, and the removal of a pipeline for new senior people.

Billionaires are done with capitalism. They're sick and tired of being dependent on consumers. So they don't care if it damages the overall economy. They never lose because they're the House and the House always wins

> the most consequential casualties may be the humble entry-level positions where aspiring artists have traditionally paid dues and learned their craft.

Makes me think of programming job ads saying "must have 10 years of experience with [insert language]" when that programming language had literally only been around for 5 years. Also makes me think of the junior software engineer, three months out of university, who still needed help with simple things, who ask when he'd be promoted to senior. The thought, "when you don't need a senior engineer to help you with your work" came to mind.

Nick Geisler was making human slop, the business he was involved in was why web search started to suck. Maybe he made a living but it was a net negative for the rest of us.

The headline does not mention that this is about a certain type of industry and not the one that Slashdot is about.

Do better.

Yes, AI destroying entry level jobs is a big problem, and it would be big enough all by itself.

But it's compounded by the fact that you have to know what you're doing to use AI. If it delivered on its promises, then it wouldn't matter that there weren't entry-level jobs, because a noob could do expert-level work.

AI fundamentally not being able to do that, and it taking an experienced person to even know what to ask for (let alone how to fix the fuck-ups) combined with the fact that it takes an expert to use

It is not grunt work that teaches you how to work. I personally started programming simply by doing my own projects. It was no grunt work, I just did what I could and if I didn't know how to do something, I tried to learn how to do it. When I joined the work force, I pretty much continued to do my own projects again. I made a lot of mistakes and I learned from those.

I think we can easily let go of the grunt work, if we just offer the kids a place where they can do those big projects in an environment where

Have you been to LinkedIn or any how-to pages lately? Same shit, different page. Reheating the same subject, the same stale pancake over and over again. Fighting for scraps of the same traffic/attention cake as everyone else.

The truth is we don't need so many copy writers. We need more quality encyclopedia/wiki pages. Here's all the reliable information you need. Here's how you do it. We don't need a million copies of the same shit just so that someone can get 5 cents a year from the viewers.