3 ms·
> It might make you feel better about the world, but the end result is still all the artists being out of work. Is it not the same with every leap in technolog
by rusticpenn 3y ago
> It might make you feel better about the world, but the end result is still all the artists being out of work.
Is it not the same with every leap in technology? There were professions like street lamp lighters, alarm services etc that have become redundant now?
- ben_w 3y agoSure, though I suspect "art" is the human version of a peacock tail — the difficulty is the point, it how we signal our worth to others, cheapening it breaks that signal — which would suggest that making all forms of art easy messes with (many of) us at a deep, essentially automatic, level. More specifically, I was responding to the idea that "compensating creators whose works are used to train the models" would actually solve anything; to use your examples, it would be as if the literal luddites were suggesting passing laws saying that "all textile machines that work like humans need to compensate the humans they displace, and also you need to make your new machines from scratch without talking to any textile workers to make sure you don't cheat", and my response would be analogous to saying "there's already machines which don't work like humans, so you're going to be out of work and have no compensation". The Luddite movement preceded The Communist Manifesto by about 30 years. Everything's sped up since then, so I'd be surprised if we have to wait 30 years for a political shift which is to AI what Communism was to industrialisation. I'm just hoping we don't get someone analogous to Stalin or Pol Pot this time.