Generative ‘A.I is not intelligent and thus can't be called true Artificial intelligence.
Generative AI systems are trained on vast corpuses of data produced by humans, and, despite objections to the contrary, does require human input for widespread adoption.
Let's take the early commercial deployments of neural networks in the 1980s that had workers at the U.S. Postal Service correct errors from mail-sorting machines (As they deployed Optical Character Recognition to check text on mail) to ensure reliable operation... And thus we can surmise that generative AI will require humans to oversee, correct, and tailor the systems’ outputs... Which we just saw a few days ago when Google had to can it's "A.I" effort.
This is in part because, unlike the goals for AI introduced in the 1950s, the machine learning systems underpinning generative A.I of today have absolutely zero understanding of the outputs that they produce.
For instance... A Generative A.I picture of a cat, there is no grasp of its ‘catness’. – Only a statistical correlation of fur, claws, teeth etc'.
And whilst it's only early days yet, A.I. isn't set to become complex and "intelligent" to take over the world any time soon... And considering that current consoles technically use "generative A.I" for upscaling, we are already seeing it in use today... So we should expect it to be used in next gen consoles.
As for jobs... Robotics, machines and computers have been "displacing" tradition work roles for over a century, human oversight will of course always be required, humans will likely continue to be required for maintenance, repairs and upgrades.
The jobs will change, they won't disappear.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
