People are always resistant to stuff like this, it's people's jobs and livelihoods after all.
However, none of the people in the creative space I see complaining about these models ever cried for: all of the jobs surrounding the horse industry (stables, horseback couriers, etc); thatches roof weavers; textiles weavers; knockeruppers; the people that manually lit street lamps; etc.
Of course many argue that industrialisation also created many more jobs, but I certainly suspect there were fewer than it consumed.
However the end result is that we are all generally better off for it. I think the reason the argument against machine learning models is flawed is that it is just neo-Luddism; it's hypocritical to complain about the loss of an industry or a specific job, or specific task of a role to technology whilst reaping the benefits of previously lost jobs - artists wear machine woven fabrics, after all; They use technology assembled by pick and place machine - we all do.
The big _however_, however, is that we can do better as a society to support transitions like this. We shouldn't stop technology if it has clear benefits for humanity, but unlike previous eras where those who were "replaced by machines" were forgotten, we need to assist and help anybody who is affected by this transition. This is how we should be doing things these days.
I find the same argument for train drivers, with the fear of being (rightfully) replaced by self driving trains, a technology that has been available for a long time now. Yes, of course they'd prefer to continue driving trains. But the ability to dramatically lower costs to riders of public transport outweighs this, and companies involved in such transitions (and wider society) need to take care of people involved in such transitions; free cross-training within the same industry, or free training within whatever industry they choose. Financial support through the transition period that their studies take. We can have and eat our silicon cake, we just have to be kind about it.
However, none of the people in the creative space I see complaining about these models ever cried for: all of the jobs surrounding the horse industry (stables, horseback couriers, etc); thatches roof weavers; textiles weavers; knockeruppers; the people that manually lit street lamps; etc.
Of course many argue that industrialisation also created many more jobs, but I certainly suspect there were fewer than it consumed.
However the end result is that we are all generally better off for it. I think the reason the argument against machine learning models is flawed is that it is just neo-Luddism; it's hypocritical to complain about the loss of an industry or a specific job, or specific task of a role to technology whilst reaping the benefits of previously lost jobs - artists wear machine woven fabrics, after all; They use technology assembled by pick and place machine - we all do.
The big _however_, however, is that we can do better as a society to support transitions like this. We shouldn't stop technology if it has clear benefits for humanity, but unlike previous eras where those who were "replaced by machines" were forgotten, we need to assist and help anybody who is affected by this transition. This is how we should be doing things these days.
I find the same argument for train drivers, with the fear of being (rightfully) replaced by self driving trains, a technology that has been available for a long time now. Yes, of course they'd prefer to continue driving trains. But the ability to dramatically lower costs to riders of public transport outweighs this, and companies involved in such transitions (and wider society) need to take care of people involved in such transitions; free cross-training within the same industry, or free training within whatever industry they choose. Financial support through the transition period that their studies take. We can have and eat our silicon cake, we just have to be kind about it.