3 ms·

I hope people get to read your comment to understand indeed what kind of world you are advocating.

surgical_fire 3y ago
The kind of world he is advocating is just the real world as it is. You have to be extremely naive or privileged to think otherwise
- emanuele232 3y ago
  I actually had a discussion regarding this topic with a peer of mine that at the time was doing art-studies . She was extremely angry and devastated that in her field weren't enough jobs available for every one that mayored in it. That was a real complaint, for her the state should step in and guarantee a well-paid job for everybody in the exact field that everyone chooses, Like "I want to be a painter" and the day after they give you a place to work on your paintings
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    Exactly. I mean, I would love to live in a world where UBI was a thing, and people were free to pursue their interests without fear of homelessness or starvation. Capitalism is a system that requires an underbelly of people exploited through the coercion inherent to the inequality of the world. That is an utopia, however. The reality is that most people - including yours truly - sell their labor to make ends meet. It certainly was not my lifelong dream to do backend development for a financial institution. Your friend (and many others in this thread) operate under a naive and entitled assumption that their creative output should be enshrined as something special, whereas throughout history technology always replaced human capacity, and we are better for it.
- nologic01 3y ago
  > is just the real world as it is What? Have you ever paid for a book? a subscription to a publishing medium of any sort, a movie or a piece of music? Have you noticed a copyright sign somewhere? Is that arrangement of recognizing and rewarding those who create something worthwhile part of the real world or not? Not even a hallucinating AI would be so incongruous.
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    Have you ever paid for food? For clothing? For cars? You might be shocked, but automation replaced humans in all those industries. I'll still pay for books, music, or whatever. I won't really care at which capacity they were AI generated.
    - nologic01 3y ago
      > but automation replaced humans in all those industries. So? To the extend that people are still involved, they are typically paid - unless it is slave labor, that is. This is not an automation vs manual labor debate. Creators will use any technology that helps them create something worthwhile. It may even involve algorithms in various ways. Generative art was a thing way before the AI bro invasion. The question is about provenance, attribution and remuneration of whatever human work and creativity is involved in producing unique pieces of work. Work that is used as input for the algorithmic production of infinite variations and replicas. The AI crowd simply wants to devalue that human input (while pressumably charging for API's or whatever comes on the other side of the meat grinder). Which I suppose might happen in an increasingly dystopic world, but they seem to also believe that people will keep embarking on literary studies, movie or music making studies etc. as some sort of non-remunerative hobby, just to keep producing useful inputs for the AI models. Its not going to happen. The golden goose will be dead before you can spell "AI".
      - surgical_fire 3y ago
        > The question is about provenance, attribution and remuneration of whatever human work and creativity is involved in producing unique pieces of work. The remuneration will always go to who owns the means of production. That is true in essentially any industry. > Its not going to happen. The golden goose will be dead before you can spell "AI". Then what are you worried about?
        nologic01 3y ago
        > The remuneration will always go to who owns the means of production. Repeating slogans one does not understand is something to be left to "AI", not functional humans. The means of production in the creative process is the brain of the person creating. Unless what you really wanted to say is "The remuneration will always go to who can steal the means of production".

The kind of world he is advocating is just the real world as it is. You have to be extremely naive or privileged to think otherwise

emanuele232 3y ago
I actually had a discussion regarding this topic with a peer of mine that at the time was doing art-studies . She was extremely angry and devastated that in her field weren't enough jobs available for every one that mayored in it. That was a real complaint, for her the state should step in and guarantee a well-paid job for everybody in the exact field that everyone chooses, Like "I want to be a painter" and the day after they give you a place to work on your paintings
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  Exactly. I mean, I would love to live in a world where UBI was a thing, and people were free to pursue their interests without fear of homelessness or starvation. Capitalism is a system that requires an underbelly of people exploited through the coercion inherent to the inequality of the world. That is an utopia, however. The reality is that most people - including yours truly - sell their labor to make ends meet. It certainly was not my lifelong dream to do backend development for a financial institution. Your friend (and many others in this thread) operate under a naive and entitled assumption that their creative output should be enshrined as something special, whereas throughout history technology always replaced human capacity, and we are better for it.
nologic01 3y ago
> is just the real world as it is What? Have you ever paid for a book? a subscription to a publishing medium of any sort, a movie or a piece of music? Have you noticed a copyright sign somewhere? Is that arrangement of recognizing and rewarding those who create something worthwhile part of the real world or not? Not even a hallucinating AI would be so incongruous.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  Have you ever paid for food? For clothing? For cars? You might be shocked, but automation replaced humans in all those industries. I'll still pay for books, music, or whatever. I won't really care at which capacity they were AI generated.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    > but automation replaced humans in all those industries. So? To the extend that people are still involved, they are typically paid - unless it is slave labor, that is. This is not an automation vs manual labor debate. Creators will use any technology that helps them create something worthwhile. It may even involve algorithms in various ways. Generative art was a thing way before the AI bro invasion. The question is about provenance, attribution and remuneration of whatever human work and creativity is involved in producing unique pieces of work. Work that is used as input for the algorithmic production of infinite variations and replicas. The AI crowd simply wants to devalue that human input (while pressumably charging for API's or whatever comes on the other side of the meat grinder). Which I suppose might happen in an increasingly dystopic world, but they seem to also believe that people will keep embarking on literary studies, movie or music making studies etc. as some sort of non-remunerative hobby, just to keep producing useful inputs for the AI models. Its not going to happen. The golden goose will be dead before you can spell "AI".
    - surgical_fire 3y ago
      > The question is about provenance, attribution and remuneration of whatever human work and creativity is involved in producing unique pieces of work. The remuneration will always go to who owns the means of production. That is true in essentially any industry. > Its not going to happen. The golden goose will be dead before you can spell "AI". Then what are you worried about?
      - nologic01 3y ago
        > The remuneration will always go to who owns the means of production. Repeating slogans one does not understand is something to be left to "AI", not functional humans. The means of production in the creative process is the brain of the person creating. Unless what you really wanted to say is "The remuneration will always go to who can steal the means of production".