5 ms·

I don't need an AI to do art so I can wash the dishes. I need an AI that can do the dishes so I can do art. - Someone else on twitter.

tombert 2y ago
I think this line of reasoning is really bizarre, as if there's this straight-line path of progress, and then we stop the second it starts doing shit that we consider "fun". Who is to say that "washing dishes" (to use your example) is a less complicated problem than art, at least in regards to robotics and the like?
- tanseydavid 2y ago
  Washing dishes can be a creative act (but it depends a lot on who is doing it).
  - jnordwick 2y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn8XFiAwLkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn8XFiAwLkM
    - tanseydavid 2y ago
      Yes, exactly like that...dishwashing as creative destruction. Thanks for that.
- bangaroo 2y ago
  it's not a matter of what's complicated, it's a matter of what it replaces. the quote isn't reflecting on what's easiest to solve, it's reflecting on the impact that it has on culture as a whole. a tangible impact of the current generation of AI tools is they displace and drown out human creations in a flood of throwaway, meaningless garbage. this is amplifying the ongoing conversion of art into "content" that's interacted with in extremely superficial and thoughtless ways. just because something _can_ be automated doesn't mean it _should_ be. we actively lose something when human creativity is replaced with algorithmically generated content because human creativity is as much a reflection of the state of the art as it is a reflection of the inner life of the person who engages in it. it's a way to learn about one another. in the context of the broader discussion of "does greater efficiency everywhere actually have any benefit beyond increasing profits," the type of thing being made efficient matters. we don't need more efficient poetry, and the promise of automation and AI should be that it allows us to shrug off things that aren't fulfilling - washing dishes, cleaning the house, so on - and focus on things that are fulfilling and meaningful. the net impact of these technologies has largely been to devalue or eliminate human beings working in creative roles, people whose work has already largely been devalued and minimized. it's totally akin to "where's my flying car?" nobody actually cares about the flying car, the point is that as technology marches on, things seem to universally get worse and it's often unclear who the new development is benefitting.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I'll agree that AI has flooded the internet with low-effort slop. I feel like I can make a pretty strong argument that this isn't new, low-effort SEO spam has been a thing for almost as long as search engines have, but it does seem like ChatGPT (and its ilk) has brought that to 11. > just because something _can_ be automated doesn't mean it _should_ be. I guess agree to disagree on that. If a machine can do something better that a human, then the machine should do it so that the human can focus on stuff that machines can't do as easily.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      > I guess agree to disagree on that. If a machine can do something better that a human, then the machine should do it so that the human can focus on stuff that machines can't do as easily Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around This isn't some kind of "division of labour, we both have strengths and weaknesses and we should leverage them to fill pur roles best" situation Machines are tools for humans to use. Humans should not care about "doing the things the machines aren't good at". All that matters is can machines do something that humans do not want to do. If they can't, they aren't a useful machine Replacing humans in areas that humans are passionate about, forcing humans to compete with machines, is frankly inhuman
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around No one's saying that. And a machine making a painting is never going to stop a human from doing so.
      - tombert 2y ago
        > Replacing humans in areas that humans are passionate about, forcing humans to compete with machines, is frankly inhuman I don't think it's going to "force" anyone out. We didn't suddenly fire all the artists the second that the camera was invented. We didn't stop paying for live concerts the moment that recorded music was available to purchase. > Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around I am not good at art. I find it pleasurable to be able to generate a picture in a few seconds that I can use for stuff. It allows me to focus on other things that I find fun instead of opening up CorelPainter and spending hours on something that won't look as good as the AI stuff. I could of course hire someone to do the art for me, but that cost money that I don't really have. The anti-AI people who just parrot "JUST PAY AN ARTIST LOLOLOL!" are dumb if they think that most people just have cash lying around to spend on random bits of custom art. Last time I checked, I am human. The AI art manages to allow me to enjoy things I wouldn't have been able to easily achieve before.
- jklinger410 2y ago
  > as if there's this straight-line path of progress I think your rebuttal is really bizarre. OP is simply saying what they want AI to do. > Who is to say that "washing dishes" (to use your example) is a less complicated problem than art I think dish washing is a bad example, because we have dishwashers. But until the market brings AI and robotic solutions to market at an affordable cost that actually fulfill most people's needs, it will continue to be a net drain on the average person. You don't get to tell people what they want or need.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I guess what I was getting at (and I'll acknowledge that I didn't word it as well as I should), is something along the lines of: "what if automating art is a necessary step if we want to automate the boring stuff?"
    - jklinger410 2y ago
      I think you are probably right. But what is really frustrating about this is the lack of alignment on what people want vs what industries need. We talk so much about how capitalism is built around people's needs, but that betrays another reality, which is that people only get what capitalism produces. If we were a planned economy we could skip right to an android in everyone's homes. But we wouldn't even have the tech for the android with a planned economy. So instead, we have to feed capitalism what it needs so it can innovate. Which sometimes is just a net loss for everyone in the meantime.
- layer8 2y ago
  The comment you’re replying to doesn’t offer any line of reasoning. They’re expressing a preference regarding what they would find beneficial.
haccount 2y ago
[dead]
glitchc 2y ago
Maybe washing dishes is harder than doing art, who knew?
- tombert 2y ago
  I honestly think that there might be some truth to that. If you look at Boston Dynamics, these are some of the very best roboticists on the planet, and it's taken decades to get robots that can walk almost as well as humans. I don't think it's incompetence on Boston Dynamics' end, I think it turns out that a lot of the stuff that's trivial and instinctual for us is actually ridiculously expensive to try and do on a computer. Washing dishes might not be the best example because dishwashers do already exist, and they work pretty well, but having a robot with anywhere near the same level of flexibility and performance as a human hand? I'm not going to say it's impossible obviously, but it seems ridiculously complex.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    And those robots can paint like a good painter??
    - tombert 2y ago
      Probably not, but the difference is that we can generate art at the "pixel" level instead of the "hand" level. Not really a way to do that for most other stuff.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        Paintings aren't made at the "pixel" level and I think your distinction is especially humorous considering the context.
        tombert 2y ago
        I mean a literal PAINTing is made with paint, obviously. If you were to try and create a robot hand that painted as well as humans that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand. I was saying that we solve the AI art problem by skipping straight to an end state (pixels) instead of the same mechanism a human might.
temporarara 2y ago
Washing dishes is more human and certainly more important than doing art.
- ndileas 2y ago
  Would you rather wash the dishes than enjoy a favorite book, or piece of music or whatever form of art best floats your boat? Seriously?

tombert 2y ago

I think this line of reasoning is really bizarre, as if there's this straight-line path of progress, and then we stop the second it starts doing shit that we consider "fun". Who is to say that "washing dishes" (to use your example) is a less complicated problem than art, at least in regards to robotics and the like?

tanseydavid 2y ago
Washing dishes can be a creative act (but it depends a lot on who is doing it).
- jnordwick 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn8XFiAwLkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn8XFiAwLkM
  - tanseydavid 2y ago
    Yes, exactly like that...dishwashing as creative destruction. Thanks for that.
bangaroo 2y ago
it's not a matter of what's complicated, it's a matter of what it replaces. the quote isn't reflecting on what's easiest to solve, it's reflecting on the impact that it has on culture as a whole. a tangible impact of the current generation of AI tools is they displace and drown out human creations in a flood of throwaway, meaningless garbage. this is amplifying the ongoing conversion of art into "content" that's interacted with in extremely superficial and thoughtless ways. just because something _can_ be automated doesn't mean it _should_ be. we actively lose something when human creativity is replaced with algorithmically generated content because human creativity is as much a reflection of the state of the art as it is a reflection of the inner life of the person who engages in it. it's a way to learn about one another. in the context of the broader discussion of "does greater efficiency everywhere actually have any benefit beyond increasing profits," the type of thing being made efficient matters. we don't need more efficient poetry, and the promise of automation and AI should be that it allows us to shrug off things that aren't fulfilling - washing dishes, cleaning the house, so on - and focus on things that are fulfilling and meaningful. the net impact of these technologies has largely been to devalue or eliminate human beings working in creative roles, people whose work has already largely been devalued and minimized. it's totally akin to "where's my flying car?" nobody actually cares about the flying car, the point is that as technology marches on, things seem to universally get worse and it's often unclear who the new development is benefitting.
- tombert 2y ago
  I'll agree that AI has flooded the internet with low-effort slop. I feel like I can make a pretty strong argument that this isn't new, low-effort SEO spam has been a thing for almost as long as search engines have, but it does seem like ChatGPT (and its ilk) has brought that to 11. > just because something _can_ be automated doesn't mean it _should_ be. I guess agree to disagree on that. If a machine can do something better that a human, then the machine should do it so that the human can focus on stuff that machines can't do as easily.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > I guess agree to disagree on that. If a machine can do something better that a human, then the machine should do it so that the human can focus on stuff that machines can't do as easily Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around This isn't some kind of "division of labour, we both have strengths and weaknesses and we should leverage them to fill pur roles best" situation Machines are tools for humans to use. Humans should not care about "doing the things the machines aren't good at". All that matters is can machines do something that humans do not want to do. If they can't, they aren't a useful machine Replacing humans in areas that humans are passionate about, forcing humans to compete with machines, is frankly inhuman
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around No one's saying that. And a machine making a painting is never going to stop a human from doing so.
    - tombert 2y ago
      > Replacing humans in areas that humans are passionate about, forcing humans to compete with machines, is frankly inhuman I don't think it's going to "force" anyone out. We didn't suddenly fire all the artists the second that the camera was invented. We didn't stop paying for live concerts the moment that recorded music was available to purchase. > Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around I am not good at art. I find it pleasurable to be able to generate a picture in a few seconds that I can use for stuff. It allows me to focus on other things that I find fun instead of opening up CorelPainter and spending hours on something that won't look as good as the AI stuff. I could of course hire someone to do the art for me, but that cost money that I don't really have. The anti-AI people who just parrot "JUST PAY AN ARTIST LOLOLOL!" are dumb if they think that most people just have cash lying around to spend on random bits of custom art. Last time I checked, I am human. The AI art manages to allow me to enjoy things I wouldn't have been able to easily achieve before.
jklinger410 2y ago
> as if there's this straight-line path of progress I think your rebuttal is really bizarre. OP is simply saying what they want AI to do. > Who is to say that "washing dishes" (to use your example) is a less complicated problem than art I think dish washing is a bad example, because we have dishwashers. But until the market brings AI and robotic solutions to market at an affordable cost that actually fulfill most people's needs, it will continue to be a net drain on the average person. You don't get to tell people what they want or need.
- tombert 2y ago
  I guess what I was getting at (and I'll acknowledge that I didn't word it as well as I should), is something along the lines of: "what if automating art is a necessary step if we want to automate the boring stuff?"
  - jklinger410 2y ago
    I think you are probably right. But what is really frustrating about this is the lack of alignment on what people want vs what industries need. We talk so much about how capitalism is built around people's needs, but that betrays another reality, which is that people only get what capitalism produces. If we were a planned economy we could skip right to an android in everyone's homes. But we wouldn't even have the tech for the android with a planned economy. So instead, we have to feed capitalism what it needs so it can innovate. Which sometimes is just a net loss for everyone in the meantime.
layer8 2y ago
The comment you’re replying to doesn’t offer any line of reasoning. They’re expressing a preference regarding what they would find beneficial.

haccount 2y ago

[dead]

glitchc 2y ago

Maybe washing dishes is harder than doing art, who knew?

tombert 2y ago
I honestly think that there might be some truth to that. If you look at Boston Dynamics, these are some of the very best roboticists on the planet, and it's taken decades to get robots that can walk almost as well as humans. I don't think it's incompetence on Boston Dynamics' end, I think it turns out that a lot of the stuff that's trivial and instinctual for us is actually ridiculously expensive to try and do on a computer. Washing dishes might not be the best example because dishwashers do already exist, and they work pretty well, but having a robot with anywhere near the same level of flexibility and performance as a human hand? I'm not going to say it's impossible obviously, but it seems ridiculously complex.
- freejazz 2y ago
  And those robots can paint like a good painter??
  - tombert 2y ago
    Probably not, but the difference is that we can generate art at the "pixel" level instead of the "hand" level. Not really a way to do that for most other stuff.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Paintings aren't made at the "pixel" level and I think your distinction is especially humorous considering the context.
      - tombert 2y ago
        I mean a literal PAINTing is made with paint, obviously. If you were to try and create a robot hand that painted as well as humans that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand. I was saying that we solve the AI art problem by skipping straight to an end state (pixels) instead of the same mechanism a human might.

temporarara 2y ago

Washing dishes is more human and certainly more important than doing art.

ndileas 2y ago
Would you rather wash the dishes than enjoy a favorite book, or piece of music or whatever form of art best floats your boat? Seriously?