4 ms·

> they have a legitimate argument that this is an unexpected, undeserved, unfair calamity for them, threatening to derail their lives, and lives of their depend

> they have a legitimate argument that this is an unexpected, undeserved, unfair calamity for them, threatening to derail their lives, and lives of their dependents, across the entire sector - and therefore that laws should be changed to shield them, or compensate them for the loss. After all, that's what laws are for. Lots of people have had their lives disrupted by technological and economic changes before - entire careers which existed a century ago are now gone. Given society provided little or no compensation for prior such cases of disruption, what’s the argument for doing differently here?

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Moral growth and learning from history?
- skissane 2y ago
  There’s a big risk that you end up creating a scheme to compensate for technological disruption in one industry and then fail to do so in another, based on the political clout / mindshare / media attention each has - and then there are many people in even worse personal situations (through no fault of their own) who would also miss out. Wouldn’t a better alternative be to work on improving social safety nets for everybody, as opposed to providing a bespoke one for a single industry?
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > Wouldn’t a better alternative be to work on improving social safety nets for everybody, as opposed to providing a bespoke one for a single industry? Yes, but: 1) It's not really an exclusive choice; different people can pursue different angles, including all of them - one can both seek immediate support/compensation for the specific case they're the victim of and seek longer-term solution for everyone who'd face the same problem in the future. 2) A bespoke solution is much more likely to be achievable than a general one. 3) I don't believe it would be good for society for artists to succeed in curtailing generative AI! But, should they succeed, I imagine the consequences will encourage people to seek the more general solution that mitigates occupational damage of GenAI while preserving its availability, instead of having to deal with a series of bespoke stopgaps that also kills GenAI entirely. 4) Not that banning GenAI has any chance of succeeding - the most we'd get is it being unavailable in some countries, who'd then be at a disadvantage in competition with countries that embraced it. Again, I'm not in favor of banning GenAI - on the contrary, I'm in favor of giving a blanket exception from copyright laws for purposes of training generative models. However, I recognize the plight of artists and other people who are feeling the negative economic impact on their jobs right now (and hell, my own line of work - software development - is still one of the most at risk in the near to mid-term, too); I wish for a solution that will help them (and others about to be in this situation), but in the meantime, I don't begrudge them for trying to fight it - I think they have full right to. I only have problems with people who oppose AI because they feel that Big AI is depriving them of opportunity to seek rent from society for the value AI models are creating.
CamperBob2 2y ago
Given society provided little or no compensation for prior such cases of disruption That's going to be hard for you to justify in the long run, I think. Virtually everybody who ever lost a job to technology ended up better off for it.
- disconcision 2y ago
  > Virtually everybody who ever lost a job to technology ended up better off for it. this feels like a much stronger claim than is typically made about the benefits of technological progress
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Certainly no stronger than the claim I was responding to. They are essentially pining for the return of careers that haven't existed for a century.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Virtually everybody who ever lost a job to technology ended up better off for it. That's plain wrong, and quite obviously so. You're demonstrating here a very common misunderstanding of the arguments people affected by (or worried about) automation taking their jobs make. In a very concise form: - It's true that society and humanity so far always benefited from eliminating jobs through technology, in the long term. - It's not true that society and humanity benefited in the immediate term, due to the economic and social disruption. And, most importantly: - It's not true that people who lost jobs to technology were better off for it - those people, those specific individuals, as well as their families and local communities, were all screwed over by progress, having their lives permanently disrupted, and in many cases being thrown into poverty for generations. (Hint: yes, there may be new jobs to replace old ones, but those jobs are there for the next generation of people, not for those who just lost theirs.) Understanding that distinction - society vs. individual victims - will help make sense of e.g. why Luddites destroyed the new mechanized looms and weaving frames. It was not about technology, it was about capital owners pulling the rug from under them, and leaving them and their children to starve.
petre 2y ago
You're only going yo get "AI art" in the future because artists will have get a second job at McDonalds to survive. The same old themes all over again. It's like the only music is Richard Clayderman tunes.
int_19h 2y ago
It depends on who was harmed. When countries were banning slavery (or serfdom in places where it was functionally equivalent, like Russia), slave owners made this very argument that depriving them of legitimately acquired workpower was an undeserved and unfair calamity for them, and were generally compensated.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Moral growth and learning from history?

skissane 2y ago
There’s a big risk that you end up creating a scheme to compensate for technological disruption in one industry and then fail to do so in another, based on the political clout / mindshare / media attention each has - and then there are many people in even worse personal situations (through no fault of their own) who would also miss out. Wouldn’t a better alternative be to work on improving social safety nets for everybody, as opposed to providing a bespoke one for a single industry?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Wouldn’t a better alternative be to work on improving social safety nets for everybody, as opposed to providing a bespoke one for a single industry? Yes, but: 1) It's not really an exclusive choice; different people can pursue different angles, including all of them - one can both seek immediate support/compensation for the specific case they're the victim of and seek longer-term solution for everyone who'd face the same problem in the future. 2) A bespoke solution is much more likely to be achievable than a general one. 3) I don't believe it would be good for society for artists to succeed in curtailing generative AI! But, should they succeed, I imagine the consequences will encourage people to seek the more general solution that mitigates occupational damage of GenAI while preserving its availability, instead of having to deal with a series of bespoke stopgaps that also kills GenAI entirely. 4) Not that banning GenAI has any chance of succeeding - the most we'd get is it being unavailable in some countries, who'd then be at a disadvantage in competition with countries that embraced it. Again, I'm not in favor of banning GenAI - on the contrary, I'm in favor of giving a blanket exception from copyright laws for purposes of training generative models. However, I recognize the plight of artists and other people who are feeling the negative economic impact on their jobs right now (and hell, my own line of work - software development - is still one of the most at risk in the near to mid-term, too); I wish for a solution that will help them (and others about to be in this situation), but in the meantime, I don't begrudge them for trying to fight it - I think they have full right to. I only have problems with people who oppose AI because they feel that Big AI is depriving them of opportunity to seek rent from society for the value AI models are creating.

CamperBob2 2y ago

Given society provided little or no compensation for prior such cases of disruption That's going to be hard for you to justify in the long run, I think. Virtually everybody who ever lost a job to technology ended up better off for it.

disconcision 2y ago
> Virtually everybody who ever lost a job to technology ended up better off for it. this feels like a much stronger claim than is typically made about the benefits of technological progress
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Certainly no stronger than the claim I was responding to. They are essentially pining for the return of careers that haven't existed for a century.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Virtually everybody who ever lost a job to technology ended up better off for it. That's plain wrong, and quite obviously so. You're demonstrating here a very common misunderstanding of the arguments people affected by (or worried about) automation taking their jobs make. In a very concise form: - It's true that society and humanity so far always benefited from eliminating jobs through technology, in the long term. - It's not true that society and humanity benefited in the immediate term, due to the economic and social disruption. And, most importantly: - It's not true that people who lost jobs to technology were better off for it - those people, those specific individuals, as well as their families and local communities, were all screwed over by progress, having their lives permanently disrupted, and in many cases being thrown into poverty for generations. (Hint: yes, there may be new jobs to replace old ones, but those jobs are there for the next generation of people, not for those who just lost theirs.) Understanding that distinction - society vs. individual victims - will help make sense of e.g. why Luddites destroyed the new mechanized looms and weaving frames. It was not about technology, it was about capital owners pulling the rug from under them, and leaving them and their children to starve.

petre 2y ago

You're only going yo get "AI art" in the future because artists will have get a second job at McDonalds to survive. The same old themes all over again. It's like the only music is Richard Clayderman tunes.

int_19h 2y ago

It depends on who was harmed. When countries were banning slavery (or serfdom in places where it was functionally equivalent, like Russia), slave owners made this very argument that depriving them of legitimately acquired workpower was an undeserved and unfair calamity for them, and were generally compensated.