6 ms·

I'm in the camp where I want AI and automation to free people from drudgery in the hope that it will encourage the biggest HUMAN artwork renaissance ever in his

I'm in the camp where I want AI and automation to free people from drudgery in the hope that it will encourage the biggest HUMAN artwork renaissance ever in history. I don't want AI to be at the forefront of all new media and artwork. That's a terrible outcome to me. And honestly there's already too much "content" in the world and being produced every day, and it seems like every time we step further up the "content is easier to produce and deliver" ladder, it actually gets way more difficult to find much of value, and also more difficult for smaller artists to find an audience. We see this on Steam where there are thousands of new game releases every week. You only ever hear of one or two. And it's almost never surprising which ones you hear about. Rarely you get an indie sensation out of nowhere, but that only usually happens when a big streamer showcases it. Speaking of streamers, it's hard to find quality small streamers too. Twitch and YouTube are saturated with streams to watch but everyone gravitates to the biggest ones because there's just too much to see. Everything is drowning in a sea of (mostly mediocre, honestly) content already, AI is going to make this problem much worse. At least with human generated media, it's a person pursuing their dreams. Those thousands of games per week might not get noticed, but the person who made one of them might launch a career off their indie steam releases and eventually lead a team that makes the next Baldur's Gate 3 (substitute with whatever popular game you like) I can't imagine the same with AI. Or actually, I can imagine much worse. The AI that generates 1000 games eventually gets bought by a company to replace half their staff and now a bunch of people are out of work and have a much harder uphill battle to pursue their dreams (assuming that working on games at that company was their dream) I don't know. I am having a hard time seeing a better society growing out of the current AI boom.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chongli 3y ago
The AI that generates 1000 games eventually gets bought by a company That seems like only a temporary phenomenon. If we've got AI that can generate any games that people actually want to play then we don't need game companies at all. In the long run I don't see any company being able to build a moat around AI. It's a cat-and-mouse game at best!
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > In the long run I don't see any company being able to build a moat around AI Why do you think they are screaming about "the dangers of AI"? So they can regulate it and gain a moat via regulatory capture.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    >> If we've got AI that can generate any games that people actually want to play then we don't need game companies at all. > Why do you think they are screaming about "the dangers of AI"? Perhaps it's those of us who enjoy making games or are otherwise invested in producing content that are concerned about humanity being reduced to braindead consumers of the neverending LLM sludge, who scream the loudest.
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      Yes, but we don't get to sit in Congressional committee hearings and bloviate about Existential Risks.
  - chongli 3y ago
    I don't think regulation will achieve what they want. Nothing short of a war-on-drugs style blanket prohibition would work. And you can look there to see how ineffective that's been at keeping drugs off the streets.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Another example of this behavior. The war on drugs not working didn't stop alcohol companies from lobbying for it, any effect that suppresses compition is valuable and its not like OpenAI and the like will be paying for enforcement, you will be.
      - chongli 3y ago
        I'd be very, very surprised if OpenAI was successful in setting up a war-on-drugs style regime that simultaneously sets them up as one of the soul providers of AI (a guaranteed monopoly on AI in the US). One of the big reasons is that it would put the US at an extreme disadvantage, competitively speaking. OpenAI would not be able to hire every single AI developer, so all of that talent would leave the US for greener pastures.
lambda_garden 3y ago
Think how many game developers were able to realize their vision because Unity3D was accessible to them but raw C++ programming was not. We may see similar outcomes for other budding artists with the help of AI models. I'm quite excited!
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Except 'their vision' is practically homogeneous. I can't think even think of a dozen Unity games that broke the mould, and genuinely stand out, out of the many tens of thousands (?). There's Genshin Impact, Pokemon Go, Superhot, Beat Saber, Monument Valley, Subnautica, Among Us, Rust, Cities:Skylines (maybe), Ori (maybe), COD:Mobile (maybe) and...?
  - frozenfoxx 3y ago
    Yeah, I can definitely see how Beat Saber, Hollow Knight, and Tunic didn’t really do anything particularly creative or impressive. /s
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      I mentioned Beat Saber? Did you skip reading the list?
  - itsboring 3y ago
    and Outer Wilds!
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      True, it definitely would count, at least more so than COD:Mobile.
  - ivxvm 3y ago
    Necropolis, Ziggurat... Imo the best games nowadays are often those that no one heard about. Popularity wasn't a good metric for a very long while. And thankfully games like "New World" and "Starfield" are helping a lot for general population to finally figure this out.
robocat 3y ago
> free people from drudgery in the hope that it will encourage the biggest HUMAN artwork renaissance ever in history. This experiment has been run in most wealthy nations and the artwork renaissance didn't happen. Most older people don't do arts/sciences when they retire from work. From what I see of younger people that no longer have to work (for whatever reason) neither do younger people become artists given the opportunity. Or look at what people of working age do with their free time in evenings or weekends after they've done their work for the week. Expect people freed from work to do more of the same as what they currently do in evenings/weekends: don't expect people will suddenly do something "productive".
- cratermoon 3y ago
  Becoming an artist is difficult. Sure, anyone can pick up a tool of their preference and learn to noodle around. Producing artwork sufficiently engaging to power a renaissance takes years of practice to mastery. We think that artists appear out of nowhere, fully formed, an impression we get from how popularity and spread works. Look under the surface, read some biographies of artists, and it turns out, with few exceptions, they all spend years going through education, apprenticeships, and generally poor visibility. Many of the artists we respect now weren't known in their lifetimes. The list includes Vincent van Gogh, Paul Cézanne, Claude Monet, Vivian Maier, Emily Dickinson, Edgar Allan Poe, Jeff Buckley, Robert Johnson, you get the idea.
- zer0tonin 3y ago
  Well I do art in the evenings and weekends, so we exist you know
- bloaf 3y ago
  > Most older people don't do arts/sciences when they retire from work. This isn't my experience. I know a bunch of old folks doing woodcarving, quilting, etc. Its just not the kind of arts you've got in mind.
- hasmanean 3y ago
  They do art. It’s just published on YouTube. Seriously the quality of diy videos and everything is sometimes PBS or BBC quality or better.
grungydan 3y ago
I'll go one further, though I expect to receive mockery for doing so: I think the internet as we conceive of it today is ultimately a failed experiment. I think that society and humanity would be better off if the internet had remained a simple backbone for vetted organizations' official use. Turning the masses loose on it has effectively ruined so many aspects of our world that we can never get back, and I for one don't think that even the most lofty and oft-touted benefits of the internet are nearly as true as we pretend. It's just another venue for the oldest of American traditions at this point: Snake Oil Sales.
- krapp 3y ago
  I won't mock you, I get where you're coming from, but I think you're forgetting just how revolutionary many aspects of the internet have been. The ability to publish to a potentially global audience without a corporate mediator. Do commerce without physically going to a store or ordering over a phone. Access to information, culture and education beyond what can fit in one's local library. Bank without an ATM. Even just being able to communicate worldwide without long-distance charges (remember those) or an envelope and stamp. Even social media, which everyone hates, was a revolution in that it got people easily using the web to network and communicate en masse, whereas prior it was just people behind pseudonyms on niche forums. There is a real and tacit improvement in the quality of life for at least millions of people behind each of those. Reducing the internet to only world-destroying negatives and writing off its positives as "snake oil" seems unnecessarily hyperbolic, as obvious as the negatives are. Although I suppose it's easier to accept the destruction of the internet if you believe that it was never worth anything to begin with. But I disagree that nothing of value is being lost. Much of value is being lost. That's what's tragic.
- fennecbutt 3y ago
  Humans will use whatever means available to us to spout bullshit, misinformation and peddle snake oil. The Internet has just made it easier for us to communicate, in doing so it has made the bad easier, but it has also made the good easier too. And fortunately there's still a lot more good than bad. So I totally disagree with you there, bettering communication only benefits our species overall. Gay rights is a great example, we only got them because of the noise and ruckus, protests, parades, individuals being brave and coming out. It's easy to hate a type of person if you've never been exposed to or communicated with them. But sometimes all it took to change the opinion of a homophobic fuck was finding out their best friend, their child, their neighbour who helps out all the time, was gay. Then suddenly it clicks. Though certainly the Internet is slightly at odds with our species; we didn't evolve to communicate in that way so it's not without its challenges.
drewcoo 3y ago
> free people from drudgery in the hope that it will encourage the biggest HUMAN artwork renaissance ever in history Just like the industrial revolution or just like desktop computers?
have_faith 3y ago
Surely this time, a new invention will give people more leisure time, instead of making it easier to do more work. Surely this time...
tivert 3y ago
> I'm in the camp where I want AI and automation to free people from drudgery in the hope that it will encourage the biggest HUMAN artwork renaissance ever in history. That is, to put it bluntly, hoping for a technological solution to a social problem. It won't happen. Ever. We absolutely, 100% DO NOT have the social or ideological framework necessary to "free people from drudgery." The only options are 1) be rich, 2) drudge, or 3) starve. Even a technology as fantastic as a Star Trek replicator won't really free us from that. If it enables anything, the only new option provided by replicators would be: 4) die from an atom bomb replicated by a nutjob.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

chongli 3y ago

The AI that generates 1000 games eventually gets bought by a company That seems like only a temporary phenomenon. If we've got AI that can generate any games that people actually want to play then we don't need game companies at all. In the long run I don't see any company being able to build a moat around AI. It's a cat-and-mouse game at best!

willcipriano 3y ago
> In the long run I don't see any company being able to build a moat around AI Why do you think they are screaming about "the dangers of AI"? So they can regulate it and gain a moat via regulatory capture.
- klyrs 3y ago
  >> If we've got AI that can generate any games that people actually want to play then we don't need game companies at all. > Why do you think they are screaming about "the dangers of AI"? Perhaps it's those of us who enjoy making games or are otherwise invested in producing content that are concerned about humanity being reduced to braindead consumers of the neverending LLM sludge, who scream the loudest.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    Yes, but we don't get to sit in Congressional committee hearings and bloviate about Existential Risks.
- chongli 3y ago
  I don't think regulation will achieve what they want. Nothing short of a war-on-drugs style blanket prohibition would work. And you can look there to see how ineffective that's been at keeping drugs off the streets.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Another example of this behavior. The war on drugs not working didn't stop alcohol companies from lobbying for it, any effect that suppresses compition is valuable and its not like OpenAI and the like will be paying for enforcement, you will be.
    - chongli 3y ago
      I'd be very, very surprised if OpenAI was successful in setting up a war-on-drugs style regime that simultaneously sets them up as one of the soul providers of AI (a guaranteed monopoly on AI in the US). One of the big reasons is that it would put the US at an extreme disadvantage, competitively speaking. OpenAI would not be able to hire every single AI developer, so all of that talent would leave the US for greener pastures.

lambda_garden 3y ago

Think how many game developers were able to realize their vision because Unity3D was accessible to them but raw C++ programming was not. We may see similar outcomes for other budding artists with the help of AI models. I'm quite excited!

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Except 'their vision' is practically homogeneous. I can't think even think of a dozen Unity games that broke the mould, and genuinely stand out, out of the many tens of thousands (?). There's Genshin Impact, Pokemon Go, Superhot, Beat Saber, Monument Valley, Subnautica, Among Us, Rust, Cities:Skylines (maybe), Ori (maybe), COD:Mobile (maybe) and...?
- frozenfoxx 3y ago
  Yeah, I can definitely see how Beat Saber, Hollow Knight, and Tunic didn’t really do anything particularly creative or impressive. /s
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    I mentioned Beat Saber? Did you skip reading the list?
- itsboring 3y ago
  and Outer Wilds!
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    True, it definitely would count, at least more so than COD:Mobile.
- ivxvm 3y ago
  Necropolis, Ziggurat... Imo the best games nowadays are often those that no one heard about. Popularity wasn't a good metric for a very long while. And thankfully games like "New World" and "Starfield" are helping a lot for general population to finally figure this out.

robocat 3y ago

> free people from drudgery in the hope that it will encourage the biggest HUMAN artwork renaissance ever in history. This experiment has been run in most wealthy nations and the artwork renaissance didn't happen. Most older people don't do arts/sciences when they retire from work. From what I see of younger people that no longer have to work (for whatever reason) neither do younger people become artists given the opportunity. Or look at what people of working age do with their free time in evenings or weekends after they've done their work for the week. Expect people freed from work to do more of the same as what they currently do in evenings/weekends: don't expect people will suddenly do something "productive".

cratermoon 3y ago
Becoming an artist is difficult. Sure, anyone can pick up a tool of their preference and learn to noodle around. Producing artwork sufficiently engaging to power a renaissance takes years of practice to mastery. We think that artists appear out of nowhere, fully formed, an impression we get from how popularity and spread works. Look under the surface, read some biographies of artists, and it turns out, with few exceptions, they all spend years going through education, apprenticeships, and generally poor visibility. Many of the artists we respect now weren't known in their lifetimes. The list includes Vincent van Gogh, Paul Cézanne, Claude Monet, Vivian Maier, Emily Dickinson, Edgar Allan Poe, Jeff Buckley, Robert Johnson, you get the idea.
zer0tonin 3y ago
Well I do art in the evenings and weekends, so we exist you know
bloaf 3y ago
> Most older people don't do arts/sciences when they retire from work. This isn't my experience. I know a bunch of old folks doing woodcarving, quilting, etc. Its just not the kind of arts you've got in mind.
hasmanean 3y ago
They do art. It’s just published on YouTube. Seriously the quality of diy videos and everything is sometimes PBS or BBC quality or better.

grungydan 3y ago

I'll go one further, though I expect to receive mockery for doing so: I think the internet as we conceive of it today is ultimately a failed experiment. I think that society and humanity would be better off if the internet had remained a simple backbone for vetted organizations' official use. Turning the masses loose on it has effectively ruined so many aspects of our world that we can never get back, and I for one don't think that even the most lofty and oft-touted benefits of the internet are nearly as true as we pretend. It's just another venue for the oldest of American traditions at this point: Snake Oil Sales.

krapp 3y ago
I won't mock you, I get where you're coming from, but I think you're forgetting just how revolutionary many aspects of the internet have been. The ability to publish to a potentially global audience without a corporate mediator. Do commerce without physically going to a store or ordering over a phone. Access to information, culture and education beyond what can fit in one's local library. Bank without an ATM. Even just being able to communicate worldwide without long-distance charges (remember those) or an envelope and stamp. Even social media, which everyone hates, was a revolution in that it got people easily using the web to network and communicate en masse, whereas prior it was just people behind pseudonyms on niche forums. There is a real and tacit improvement in the quality of life for at least millions of people behind each of those. Reducing the internet to only world-destroying negatives and writing off its positives as "snake oil" seems unnecessarily hyperbolic, as obvious as the negatives are. Although I suppose it's easier to accept the destruction of the internet if you believe that it was never worth anything to begin with. But I disagree that nothing of value is being lost. Much of value is being lost. That's what's tragic.
fennecbutt 3y ago
Humans will use whatever means available to us to spout bullshit, misinformation and peddle snake oil. The Internet has just made it easier for us to communicate, in doing so it has made the bad easier, but it has also made the good easier too. And fortunately there's still a lot more good than bad. So I totally disagree with you there, bettering communication only benefits our species overall. Gay rights is a great example, we only got them because of the noise and ruckus, protests, parades, individuals being brave and coming out. It's easy to hate a type of person if you've never been exposed to or communicated with them. But sometimes all it took to change the opinion of a homophobic fuck was finding out their best friend, their child, their neighbour who helps out all the time, was gay. Then suddenly it clicks. Though certainly the Internet is slightly at odds with our species; we didn't evolve to communicate in that way so it's not without its challenges.

drewcoo 3y ago

> free people from drudgery in the hope that it will encourage the biggest HUMAN artwork renaissance ever in history Just like the industrial revolution or just like desktop computers?

have_faith 3y ago

Surely this time, a new invention will give people more leisure time, instead of making it easier to do more work. Surely this time...

tivert 3y ago

> I'm in the camp where I want AI and automation to free people from drudgery in the hope that it will encourage the biggest HUMAN artwork renaissance ever in history. That is, to put it bluntly, hoping for a technological solution to a social problem. It won't happen. Ever. We absolutely, 100% DO NOT have the social or ideological framework necessary to "free people from drudgery." The only options are 1) be rich, 2) drudge, or 3) starve. Even a technology as fantastic as a Star Trek replicator won't really free us from that. If it enables anything, the only new option provided by replicators would be: 4) die from an atom bomb replicated by a nutjob.