3 ms·

Thank you! This is exactly why we need to BAN weaving machines. The will to live is sustained by the work of the skilled artisans who create clothing by hand w

• photoGrant 3y ago
  As per usual, money thinks of a human as a commodity for sale, not a neighbour being exploited or livelihood being stripped. If you think throwing life into a black box and consuming its results will improve productivity and enhance creativity. You're forgetting the only thing we feed this thing is 'results'. You're drinking the piss from a million artists and thinking it's fresh water. Eventually this filtered, censored source of creativity is AI material being used and creating for AI, not humans -- because humans quit being a source of material and nothing more than a requester. The short sightedness of believing you can commodify the human spirit is the most incredulous shit I've ever seen.
  • throwaway598 3y ago
    Self driving cars are far more impactful on employment and livelihoods of lower income and independent workers. And seemingly harder to reach non-monopoly/oligopoly solutions.
    • photoGrant 3y ago
      I don't play football unless the goalposts remain stationary.
      • throwaway598 3y ago
        How wonderful it might be to be able to have tickets to both a conventional game of football and an imagined one where goalposts move around. Paying people to move goalposts is expensive, and it might turn out to be a flop, but you could do both with Sora cheaply, and even make it into an interactive movie which, something impossible with conventional read only films.
• chrisknyfe 3y ago
  The luddites didn't destroy the power looms because they were some kind of handcrafting purists - they destroyed the machines because they took away ownership of the means of production from individual craftsmen to big businesses. The problem wasn't the machine, it was the factory and its owner.
  • xscott 3y ago
    I'm guessing they were worried about their source of income, and not Marxist philosophy that came about 100 years later. However my history isn't so hot, and maybe Ned was a philosopher in addition to a weaver, and maybe Karl should've paid royalties to his estate for stealing those ideas. :-)
• Springtime 3y ago
  Comments like these are kind of straw man rebuttals imo. There have been similar arguments such as 'electronic music didn't destroy musicianship', 'photography didn't destroy art', etc. They skirt around the important details, in that in all those analogies the entire process/field wasn't replaced/impacted by automation, only facets. Advanced generative NNs aren't merely dumb automated tools that still require human craftmanship but rather, at a baseline, take the place of the humans in virtually all respects of design, implementation and continually synthesizing based on others' work. The analogy presented in your post doesn't account for the designers still involved with the process, the real-world practicalities that involve humans of getting clothing made even with all the automation available. Generative AI doesn't have this goal; it's increasingly allowing for replacement of all humans and processes involved, besides the one wishing upon a genie lamp. Now one can of course apply their own craftsmanship to such outputs if desired and there are examples of this from existing artists/writers where it fits more like a tool into a workflow (and such analogies would actually apply here), however as we can already observe the vast majority of uses don't and there is still at a minimum a usable result, as the tech advances. There are also parallels one commonly reads drawn to how humans operate: if a human studied others' artwork then they too would be able to synthesize results. However no human has memory and mind's eye recall like that of advanced NNs, which is plainly observable from the output of human history. It's an unfair comparison. The goal of generative models is to be superhuman yet only human arguments are being applied. I think there are a bunch of positives and negatives to this but it's hard not to see the impact it will have particularly on human motivation and societal expectations, regardless of financial incentives, apart from the general shut-up-and-take-it attitude one sees. There are some pretty impactful legitimate concerns to be had that warrant thoughtful discussion.