So my challenge to the writer is, why shouldn't the media companies pay $900k to hire AI gurus? If the companies think paying $900k to writers has a better return, they'd do it in a heartbeat, so why aren't they?
And I don't mean things that took a risk that failed to pay off. I mean things that you could take to a Writing 101 class after eight weeks and the students could savage based on what they were taught... and there's no excuse like "the authors understand the rules enough to transcend them", the writing is bad on the standard measures and also had no other redeeming values either.
It's actually sort of weird that they see this as some sort of cost center to be managed. They already don't seem to care about it at all. From that point of view, using AI makes sense; they don't seem to care how bad the writing is, so why pay for it at all?
Though it seems to me the effort put into AI would cover an awful lot of writing no matter how you slice it. That one $900K job won't be the only one. Will a team of super highly paid AI specialists absolutely be cheaper than actual writers?
It would be super ironic to start an "AI writing startup" and then do what a lot of the AI startups have done behind the hood and hire humans to do the initial work. Why invest in risky tech? Just AI-wash the writing! Everybody wins!
I would note the writer vs ML product manager roles aren’t related. If you click through there’s nothing about generative AI or LLM or SD or anything related to content generation. Looks like run of the mill ML role, likely associated with recommendation engines or some other engagement generation role.
N.b., I don’t think they would pay $900k for a writer unless the writer is some heavy hitter star power writer. Rather than a salary my understanding is these roles draw down royalties, which as a variable annuity can be worth far more or far less, but encompass a lot more risk. Also amongst the creative talent they often make the least afaik.
Maybe it's relevant because it's yet another example showing that leaving wages up to the market isn't creating good results.
There's no doubt in my mind that a society which paid teachers more than lawyers would be a better society than the one we have.
We need far more teachers than lawyers and the skills required to, say, teach second graders, are not as advanced as those required to pass the bar exam. I’m all for public support of teachers, but it’s easy to say you don’t value a lawyer until you need one. Having fewer and worse lawyers means we will have worse laws and more injustice.
To wit, public defenders make on average slightly less than a teacher. Given the quality of justice you can expect from a public defender, and the severe lack of them, is this a positive outcome? If you were accused of something falsely would you voluntarily use the public defender vs hiring the best you can afford?
Why do you assume suddenly that I'm proposing dictatorship? This is a straw man.
Laws regulating the ability of corporations to bust unions, along with rules on fair distribution of profits including limits on highest-to-lowest compensation ratios, would go a long way to ensure people who are integral to companies aren't always getting shafted because people higher up oh-so-surprisingly decide to compensate themselves instead of their workers.
> We need far more teachers than lawyers and the skills required to, say, teach second graders, are not as advanced as those required to pass the bar exam.
No one will pass the bar exam if they haven't mastered the skills taught to second graders. Lawyers can't exist without teachers.
> To wit, public defenders make on average slightly less than a teacher. Given the quality of justice you can expect from a public defender, and the severe lack of them, is this a positive outcome?
The problem you're describing is one of disparity: it's not just that public defenders are paid so little, it's also that prosecutors are paid so much. Public defenders are an outlier: a huge number of lawyers are corporate lawyers who create an environment of caveat emptor which is hugely destructive in our society.
> If you were accused of something falsely would you voluntarily use the public defender vs hiring the best you can afford?
Have you considered that I might not selfishly be thinking only of myself, and that I might want a legal system that is just even for people who are poor? The argument you're making only appeals to rich sociopaths who don't care about the poor.
Prosecutors don’t make more than defenders. They typically make exactly the same. A quick Kagi would confirm this.
I’m not sure how you’re getting to diagnosing me with a psychiatric disorder. I would be thrilled if the public funding model paid public defenders and teachers substantially more. But you would still seek the best lawyer you could afford, and that’s not my fault or a psychiatric condition on my part. That’s human nature. Thus lawyers are paid a lot. When you need a good lawyer, you pay for a good lawyer.
I have no doubt it would be much worse.