6 ms·

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will. So the fun,

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will. So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity. My mixer can mix dough better than I can, but I still enjoy kneading it by hand. The incredibly good artisanal bakery down the street did not reduce my enjoyment of baking, even though I cannot compete with them in quality by any measure. Modern slip casting can make superior pottery by many different quality measures, but potters enjoy throwing it on a wheel and producing unique pieces. But if your idea of fun is tied to the "no one else can do this but me", then you've been doing it wrong before AI existed.

patcon 1y ago
Yeah, I think you're onto something. I'm not sure the performative motivation is necessarily bad, but def different Maybe AI is like Covid, where it will reveal that there were subtle differences in the underlying humans all along, but we just never realized it until something shattered the ability for ambiguity to persist. I'm inclined to so that this is a destabilising thing, regardless of my thoughts on the "right" way to think about creativity. Multiple ways could coexist before, and now one way no longer "works".
quantumgarbage 1y ago
I think you are way past the argument the writer is making.
ebiester 1y ago
Let's frame it more generously: The reward is based on being able to contribute something novel to the world - not because nobody else can but because it's another contribution to the world's knowledge.
- curl-up 1y ago
  If the core idea that was intended to be broadcasted to the world was a "contribution", and LLM simply expanded on it, then I would view LLMs simply a component in that broadcasting operation (just as the internet infrastructure would be), and the author's contribution would still be intact, and so should his enjoyment. But his argument does not align with that. His argument is that he enjoys the act of writing itself. If he views his act of writing (regardless of the idea being transmitted) as his "contribution to world's knowledge", then I have to say I disagree - I don't think his writing is particularly interesting in and of itself. His ideas might be interesting (even if I disagree), but he obviously doesn't find the formation of ideas enjoyable enough.
- Viliam1234 1y ago
  Now you can contribute something novel to the world by pressing a button. Sounds like an improvement.
  - drdeca 1y ago
    If one merely presses a button (the same button, not choosing what button to push based on context), I don’t see what it is that one has contributed? One of those tippy bird toys can press a button.
    - fennecbutt 1y ago
      I can draw a circle on a piece of paper and that's a serious contribution? Where is the line drawn? Is me sneezing a contribution to the world of art, since art is all about interpretation™®© and some smarmy critic will do a piece on how my sneeze is a visceral physical performative art illustrating the downfall of the modern world where technology binds us and we spend too much time inside surrounded by screens and dust and co2. Nah, I just sneezed. That's all.
      - drdeca 1y ago
        It sounds to me like you are maybe agreeing with me but thought that I was expressing the opposite of what I did, and so are phrasing it as if it were disagreement? Or maybe you are just agreeing, and did understand that my point was that I don’t think pressing a button is a contribution. If you are disagreeing with my comment, can you explain how this is disagreeing?
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  The primary motivation should be wisdom. No one can become wise for you. You don't become any wiser yourself that way. And a machine isn't even capable of being wise. So while AI might remove the need for human beings to engage in certain practical activities, it cannot eliminate the theoretical, because by definition, theory is done for its own sake, to benefit the person theorizing by leading them to understanding something about the world. AI can perhaps find a beneficial place here in the way books or teachers do, as guides. But in all these cases, you absolutely need to engage with the subject matter yourself to profit from it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mionhe 1y ago
  It sounds as if the reward is primarily monetary in this case. As some others have commented, you can find rewards that aren't monetary to motivate you, and you can find ways to make your work so unique that people are willing to pay for it. Technology forces us to use the creative process to more creatively monetize our work.
- fennecbutt 1y ago
  Let's be honest, humans have been creating slop for much longer then machines. Not a bad thing, but don't put it all on a pedestal.
- drdaeman 1y ago
  If that's the source of author's existential crisis, they may possibly find it interesting to meditate on the idea that there's no thinker behind the thought, and the impermanence of "self". Even if they don't buy all the way into the whole hard incompatiblism thing, the idea is that they may find some value in the process.
movpasd 1y ago
Sometimes the fun is in creating something useful, as a human, for humans. We want to feel useful to our tribe.
- rkhassen9 1y ago
  I think you articulated the actual point of the OP. It isn’t so much about creating something better than anyone else, but it is a feeling that your contribution and world means something. AI can somehow cause one to react with a feeling of futility. Engaging in acts of creation, and responding to others acts of creation seems a way out of that feeling.
Tuperoir 1y ago
Good point. Self-actualisation should be about doing the things that only you can. Not better than anyone else, but more like, the specific things that ony you, with the same of your experience, expertise, values and constraints can do.
StefanBatory 1y ago
Knowing that what I do anyone can do, no matter how well I'll do it, is discouraging. Because then, what is my purpose? What can I say that I'm good at?
- curl-up 1y ago
  Would you say that the chess players became "purposeless" with Deep Blue, or Go players with Alpha Go?
  - rfw300 1y ago
    It's interesting that you name those examples, because Lee Sedol, the all-time great Go player, retired shortly after losing to Alpha Go, saying: "Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated... losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing... I could no longer enjoy the game. So I retired." [1, 2] So for some, yes. It is of course also true that many people derive self-worth and fulfillment from contributing positively to the world, and AI automating the productive work in which they specialize can undermine that. [1] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191127004800315 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191127004800315 [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/world/asia/lee-saedol-go-ai.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/world/asia/lee-saedol-go-...
    - curl-up 1y ago
      I am in no way disputing that some people would feel that way because of AI, just as some performing classical musicians felt that way in the advent of the audio recorder. What I am saying is that (1) I regard this as an unhealthy relationship to creativity (and I accept that this is subjective), and (2) that most people do not feel that way, as can be confirmed by the fact that chess, go, and live music performances are all still very much practiced.
- aprdm 1y ago
  That's a deeper question that only you can answer. I can only say that your thinking based on how you phrased it doesn't really lead to happiness in general
yapyap 1y ago
I mean yeah apparently so for the OP but I’m sure he did not mean for it to be that way intentionally
jsemrau 1y ago
"The fun has been sucked out of the process of preparing food because nothing I make organically can compete with what restaurants/supermarkets already produces—or soon will."
getpokedagain 1y ago
I don’t think it’s solely the rub in others faces that they can’t create. You hope they learn to as well.
kelseyfrog 1y ago
> So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity. People realize this at various points in their life, and some not at all. In terms the author might accept, the metaphor of the stoic archer comes to mind. Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. In this cast, the action is writing while the target is having better thoughts. Much of our life is governed by the success at which we hit our targets, but why do that to oneself? We have a choice in how we approach the world, and setting our intentions toward action and away from targets is a subtle yet profound shift. A clearer example might be someone who wants to make a friend. Let's imagine they're at a party and they go in with the intention of making a friend, they're setting themselves up for failure. They have relatively little control over that outcome. However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically. Choosing one's goals - primarily grounded in action - is an under-appreciated perspective.
- sifar 1y ago
  >> Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. The primary reason is not that it relieves us of the disappointment, but that worrying about the outcome increases our anxiety and impacts our action which hampers the outcome.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  > Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. This is true, but the tough part is it's not the whole story. First, obviously along some dimensions of life, targets matter. If we need to grow food to eat, the pleasant feeling of working in the garden isn't going to be sufficient; if we need to strengthen a dike to prevent the town from being inundated, the sensation of swinging a hammer isn't going to cut it. > However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically. That is true, but it's also possible for a person to feel like they are being authentic (and even to be correct about that), yet still seem off-putting to others, perhaps for reasons they aren't aware of. Even if they're not focused on the "target" of making a friend, there are intermediate targets like "interact with other people in a way that they (not just I) enjoy", and if those targets aren't met, eventually a reckoning must come. So the second point is that evaluating the "action" is an internal perspective that can become out of sync with reality even in cases where the result isn't so critical. We may not want to be focused on "end goals" but we need some amount of focus on external calibrators of some sort, to keep us from descending into solipcism. Then the third thing is that (maybe because of the first two), people have a tendency to extend their results-oriented mindset more and more, and even if an individual resists this, they have to deal with the fact that everyone around them may be doing it. So even if you take the view that writing is a human activity that should be valued for the gusto and AI writing is missing the point, if everyone around you stops writing and starts using AI instead, a lot of important stuff in the penumbra of the activity can be weakened. Like it becomes harder to put together a writing club/workshop etc., maybe even to buy books. And in particular it can become harder to straddle the line between target and action in terms of employment and generally meeting your material needs. There are plenty of people who have artistic skill and have a job where they get to use it to some extent (e.g., graphic design), and even though it may have some distasteful commercial aspects, they can still get some of that "action satisfaction" from their job. But if AI eats all the graphic design jobs, now you have to spend all your work hours doing something that gives you none of that satisfaction, and cram all the satisfying artistic action into your free time. The same is true for technical tasks. A lot of the dismay over the use of AI for programming arises because people used to be able to get paid for doing things that also gave them a sense of satisfaction for engaging in a sort of problem-solving task that they enjoyed as an action. Now it's harder to do that, but everyone still has to eat, so they have to give up some of the satisfaction they used to get because they can't get paid for it anymore. I agree that, for an individual, shifting the mindset to action can be helpful. But we as individuals live in the world, and the more an individual's mindset becomes out of step with that of his society, the harder it becomes to live in accordance with that mindset. So I think we also need to apply pressure to create a societal mindset that values and supports the kinds of individual mindsets we want people to have.
garrettj 1y ago
Yeah, there’s something this person needs to embrace about the process rather than being some kind of modern John Henry, comparing themselves to a machine. There’s still value in the things a person creates despite what AI can derive from its training model of Reddit comments. Find peace in the process of making and you’ll continue to love it.
nthingtohide 1y ago
We need to start taking a leaf of advice from spiritual knowledge that "You are not the doer." You were never the doer. The doing happened on its own. You were merely a vessel, an instrument. A Witness. Observe your inner mechanisms of mind, and you will quickly come to this realisation.
wcfrobert 1y ago
I think the article is getting at the fact that in a post-AGI world, human skill is a depreciating asset. This is terrifying because we exchange our physical and mental labor for money. Consider this: why would a company hire me if - with enough GPU and capital - they can copy-and-paste 1,000 of AI agents much smarter to do the work? With AGI, Knowledge workers will be worth less until they are worthless. While I'm genuinely excited about the scientific progress AGI will bring (e.g. curing all diseases), I really hope there's a place for me in the post-AGI world. Otherwise, like the potters and bakers who can't compete in the market with cold-hard industrial machines, I'll be selling my python code base on Etsy. No Set Gauge had an excellent blog post about this. Have a read if you want a dash of existential dread for the weekend: https://www.nosetgauge.com/p/capital-agi-and-human-ambition https://www.nosetgauge.com/p/capital-agi-and-human-ambition.
- senordevnyc 1y ago
  This is only terrifying because of how we’ve structured society. There’s a version of the trajectory we’re on that leads to a post-scarcity society. I’m not sure we can pull that off as a species, but even if we can, it’s going to be a bumpy road.
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    the barrier to that version of the trajectory is that "we" haven't structured society. what structure exists, exists as a result of capital extracting as much wealth from labor as labor will allow (often by dividing class interests among labor). agreed on the bumpy road - i don't see how we'll reach a post-scarcity society unless there is an intentional restructuring (which, many people think, would require a pretty violent paradigm shift).
    - jackphilson 1y ago
      I think we think of it as 'extracting' because people are coerced into jobs that they hate. I think AI can help us exit the paradigm of working as extracting. Basically, passion economy (ai handles marketing, internet distribution). Allows you to focus on what you actually like, but it can actually make money this time.
gibbitz 1y ago
I think the point is that part of the value of a work of art to this point is the effort or lack of effort involved in its creation. Evidence of effort has traditionally been a sign of the quality of thought put into a work as a product of time spent in its creation. LLMs short circuit this instinct in evaluation making some think works generated by AI are better than they are while simultaneously making those who create work see it as devaluation of work (which is the demotivator here). I'm curious why so any people see creators and intellectuals as competitive people trying to prove they're better than someone else. This isn't why people are driven to seek knowledge or create Art. I'm sure everyone has their reasons for this, but it feels like insecurity from the outside. Looking at debates about AI and Art outside of IP often brings out a lot of misunderstandings about what makes good Art and why Art is a thing man has been compelled to make since the beginning of the species. It takes a lifetime to select techniques and thought patterns that define a unique and authentic voice. A lifetime of working hard on creating things adds up to that voice. When you start to believe that work is in vain because the audience doesn't know the difference it certainly doesn't make it feel rewarding to do.
- gibbitz 1y ago
  To put it another way: if we made a machine that could instantly create a baby, how would that effect the notion of motherhood? Sure children are adopted or born to surrogacy but the connection formed during gestation and that time itself is a huge part of our notion of the connection between mother and child. Being an Artist is the same thing, an identity bred from gestation proved by the ends. Before the rise of Western culture, ancient cultures didn't attribute an artist to a work. Think Ancient Greece or Egypt. These cultures still produced Art because the culture valued it, but in society these creators were seen as tradesmen or they were slaves. AI used in this way both reduces cultural value and removes or reduces the social status of the creator. I find it telling that LLMs are quite adept at mash-ups and decisions based on data analysis which in my experience is what most business managers do. Why are we not using AI to replace worthless middle management? After all they are lower skilled and higher paid than many developers. I'd argue that anyone who thinks you can replace a job with AI is not doing that job as a career. AI devs who think LLM can replace Java web developers are not Java web developers. Internet trolls who think LLM can replace Artists are not Artists. I think this moment we're in is revealing that we've become so siloed that we have lost our curiosity about each other and cultural history. It's frightening to see how we're changing our culture to accommodate a technology at the expense of people and just how blase we are about it.

patcon 1y ago

Yeah, I think you're onto something. I'm not sure the performative motivation is necessarily bad, but def different Maybe AI is like Covid, where it will reveal that there were subtle differences in the underlying humans all along, but we just never realized it until something shattered the ability for ambiguity to persist. I'm inclined to so that this is a destabilising thing, regardless of my thoughts on the "right" way to think about creativity. Multiple ways could coexist before, and now one way no longer "works".

quantumgarbage 1y ago

I think you are way past the argument the writer is making.

ebiester 1y ago

Let's frame it more generously: The reward is based on being able to contribute something novel to the world - not because nobody else can but because it's another contribution to the world's knowledge.

curl-up 1y ago
If the core idea that was intended to be broadcasted to the world was a "contribution", and LLM simply expanded on it, then I would view LLMs simply a component in that broadcasting operation (just as the internet infrastructure would be), and the author's contribution would still be intact, and so should his enjoyment. But his argument does not align with that. His argument is that he enjoys the act of writing itself. If he views his act of writing (regardless of the idea being transmitted) as his "contribution to world's knowledge", then I have to say I disagree - I don't think his writing is particularly interesting in and of itself. His ideas might be interesting (even if I disagree), but he obviously doesn't find the formation of ideas enjoyable enough.
Viliam1234 1y ago
Now you can contribute something novel to the world by pressing a button. Sounds like an improvement.
- drdeca 1y ago
  If one merely presses a button (the same button, not choosing what button to push based on context), I don’t see what it is that one has contributed? One of those tippy bird toys can press a button.
  - fennecbutt 1y ago
    I can draw a circle on a piece of paper and that's a serious contribution? Where is the line drawn? Is me sneezing a contribution to the world of art, since art is all about interpretation™®© and some smarmy critic will do a piece on how my sneeze is a visceral physical performative art illustrating the downfall of the modern world where technology binds us and we spend too much time inside surrounded by screens and dust and co2. Nah, I just sneezed. That's all.
    - drdeca 1y ago
      It sounds to me like you are maybe agreeing with me but thought that I was expressing the opposite of what I did, and so are phrasing it as if it were disagreement? Or maybe you are just agreeing, and did understand that my point was that I don’t think pressing a button is a contribution. If you are disagreeing with my comment, can you explain how this is disagreeing?
lo_zamoyski 1y ago
The primary motivation should be wisdom. No one can become wise for you. You don't become any wiser yourself that way. And a machine isn't even capable of being wise. So while AI might remove the need for human beings to engage in certain practical activities, it cannot eliminate the theoretical, because by definition, theory is done for its own sake, to benefit the person theorizing by leading them to understanding something about the world. AI can perhaps find a beneficial place here in the way books or teachers do, as guides. But in all these cases, you absolutely need to engage with the subject matter yourself to profit from it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mionhe 1y ago
It sounds as if the reward is primarily monetary in this case. As some others have commented, you can find rewards that aren't monetary to motivate you, and you can find ways to make your work so unique that people are willing to pay for it. Technology forces us to use the creative process to more creatively monetize our work.
fennecbutt 1y ago
Let's be honest, humans have been creating slop for much longer then machines. Not a bad thing, but don't put it all on a pedestal.
drdaeman 1y ago
If that's the source of author's existential crisis, they may possibly find it interesting to meditate on the idea that there's no thinker behind the thought, and the impermanence of "self". Even if they don't buy all the way into the whole hard incompatiblism thing, the idea is that they may find some value in the process.

movpasd 1y ago

Sometimes the fun is in creating something useful, as a human, for humans. We want to feel useful to our tribe.

rkhassen9 1y ago
I think you articulated the actual point of the OP. It isn’t so much about creating something better than anyone else, but it is a feeling that your contribution and world means something. AI can somehow cause one to react with a feeling of futility. Engaging in acts of creation, and responding to others acts of creation seems a way out of that feeling.

Tuperoir 1y ago

Good point. Self-actualisation should be about doing the things that only you can. Not better than anyone else, but more like, the specific things that ony you, with the same of your experience, expertise, values and constraints can do.

StefanBatory 1y ago

Knowing that what I do anyone can do, no matter how well I'll do it, is discouraging. Because then, what is my purpose? What can I say that I'm good at?

curl-up 1y ago
Would you say that the chess players became "purposeless" with Deep Blue, or Go players with Alpha Go?
- rfw300 1y ago
  It's interesting that you name those examples, because Lee Sedol, the all-time great Go player, retired shortly after losing to Alpha Go, saying: "Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated... losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing... I could no longer enjoy the game. So I retired." [1, 2] So for some, yes. It is of course also true that many people derive self-worth and fulfillment from contributing positively to the world, and AI automating the productive work in which they specialize can undermine that. [1] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191127004800315 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191127004800315 [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/world/asia/lee-saedol-go-ai.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/world/asia/lee-saedol-go-...
  - curl-up 1y ago
    I am in no way disputing that some people would feel that way because of AI, just as some performing classical musicians felt that way in the advent of the audio recorder. What I am saying is that (1) I regard this as an unhealthy relationship to creativity (and I accept that this is subjective), and (2) that most people do not feel that way, as can be confirmed by the fact that chess, go, and live music performances are all still very much practiced.
aprdm 1y ago
That's a deeper question that only you can answer. I can only say that your thinking based on how you phrased it doesn't really lead to happiness in general

yapyap 1y ago

I mean yeah apparently so for the OP but I’m sure he did not mean for it to be that way intentionally

jsemrau 1y ago

"The fun has been sucked out of the process of preparing food because nothing I make organically can compete with what restaurants/supermarkets already produces—or soon will."

getpokedagain 1y ago

I don’t think it’s solely the rub in others faces that they can’t create. You hope they learn to as well.

kelseyfrog 1y ago

> So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity. People realize this at various points in their life, and some not at all. In terms the author might accept, the metaphor of the stoic archer comes to mind. Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. In this cast, the action is writing while the target is having better thoughts. Much of our life is governed by the success at which we hit our targets, but why do that to oneself? We have a choice in how we approach the world, and setting our intentions toward action and away from targets is a subtle yet profound shift. A clearer example might be someone who wants to make a friend. Let's imagine they're at a party and they go in with the intention of making a friend, they're setting themselves up for failure. They have relatively little control over that outcome. However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically. Choosing one's goals - primarily grounded in action - is an under-appreciated perspective.

sifar 1y ago
>> Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. The primary reason is not that it relieves us of the disappointment, but that worrying about the outcome increases our anxiety and impacts our action which hampers the outcome.
BrenBarn 1y ago
> Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. This is true, but the tough part is it's not the whole story. First, obviously along some dimensions of life, targets matter. If we need to grow food to eat, the pleasant feeling of working in the garden isn't going to be sufficient; if we need to strengthen a dike to prevent the town from being inundated, the sensation of swinging a hammer isn't going to cut it. > However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically. That is true, but it's also possible for a person to feel like they are being authentic (and even to be correct about that), yet still seem off-putting to others, perhaps for reasons they aren't aware of. Even if they're not focused on the "target" of making a friend, there are intermediate targets like "interact with other people in a way that they (not just I) enjoy", and if those targets aren't met, eventually a reckoning must come. So the second point is that evaluating the "action" is an internal perspective that can become out of sync with reality even in cases where the result isn't so critical. We may not want to be focused on "end goals" but we need some amount of focus on external calibrators of some sort, to keep us from descending into solipcism. Then the third thing is that (maybe because of the first two), people have a tendency to extend their results-oriented mindset more and more, and even if an individual resists this, they have to deal with the fact that everyone around them may be doing it. So even if you take the view that writing is a human activity that should be valued for the gusto and AI writing is missing the point, if everyone around you stops writing and starts using AI instead, a lot of important stuff in the penumbra of the activity can be weakened. Like it becomes harder to put together a writing club/workshop etc., maybe even to buy books. And in particular it can become harder to straddle the line between target and action in terms of employment and generally meeting your material needs. There are plenty of people who have artistic skill and have a job where they get to use it to some extent (e.g., graphic design), and even though it may have some distasteful commercial aspects, they can still get some of that "action satisfaction" from their job. But if AI eats all the graphic design jobs, now you have to spend all your work hours doing something that gives you none of that satisfaction, and cram all the satisfying artistic action into your free time. The same is true for technical tasks. A lot of the dismay over the use of AI for programming arises because people used to be able to get paid for doing things that also gave them a sense of satisfaction for engaging in a sort of problem-solving task that they enjoyed as an action. Now it's harder to do that, but everyone still has to eat, so they have to give up some of the satisfaction they used to get because they can't get paid for it anymore. I agree that, for an individual, shifting the mindset to action can be helpful. But we as individuals live in the world, and the more an individual's mindset becomes out of step with that of his society, the harder it becomes to live in accordance with that mindset. So I think we also need to apply pressure to create a societal mindset that values and supports the kinds of individual mindsets we want people to have.

garrettj 1y ago

Yeah, there’s something this person needs to embrace about the process rather than being some kind of modern John Henry, comparing themselves to a machine. There’s still value in the things a person creates despite what AI can derive from its training model of Reddit comments. Find peace in the process of making and you’ll continue to love it.

nthingtohide 1y ago

We need to start taking a leaf of advice from spiritual knowledge that "You are not the doer." You were never the doer. The doing happened on its own. You were merely a vessel, an instrument. A Witness. Observe your inner mechanisms of mind, and you will quickly come to this realisation.

wcfrobert 1y ago

I think the article is getting at the fact that in a post-AGI world, human skill is a depreciating asset. This is terrifying because we exchange our physical and mental labor for money. Consider this: why would a company hire me if - with enough GPU and capital - they can copy-and-paste 1,000 of AI agents much smarter to do the work? With AGI, Knowledge workers will be worth less until they are worthless. While I'm genuinely excited about the scientific progress AGI will bring (e.g. curing all diseases), I really hope there's a place for me in the post-AGI world. Otherwise, like the potters and bakers who can't compete in the market with cold-hard industrial machines, I'll be selling my python code base on Etsy. No Set Gauge had an excellent blog post about this. Have a read if you want a dash of existential dread for the weekend: https://www.nosetgauge.com/p/capital-agi-and-human-ambition https://www.nosetgauge.com/p/capital-agi-and-human-ambition.

senordevnyc 1y ago
This is only terrifying because of how we’ve structured society. There’s a version of the trajectory we’re on that leads to a post-scarcity society. I’m not sure we can pull that off as a species, but even if we can, it’s going to be a bumpy road.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  the barrier to that version of the trajectory is that "we" haven't structured society. what structure exists, exists as a result of capital extracting as much wealth from labor as labor will allow (often by dividing class interests among labor). agreed on the bumpy road - i don't see how we'll reach a post-scarcity society unless there is an intentional restructuring (which, many people think, would require a pretty violent paradigm shift).
  - jackphilson 1y ago
    I think we think of it as 'extracting' because people are coerced into jobs that they hate. I think AI can help us exit the paradigm of working as extracting. Basically, passion economy (ai handles marketing, internet distribution). Allows you to focus on what you actually like, but it can actually make money this time.

gibbitz 1y ago

I think the point is that part of the value of a work of art to this point is the effort or lack of effort involved in its creation. Evidence of effort has traditionally been a sign of the quality of thought put into a work as a product of time spent in its creation. LLMs short circuit this instinct in evaluation making some think works generated by AI are better than they are while simultaneously making those who create work see it as devaluation of work (which is the demotivator here). I'm curious why so any people see creators and intellectuals as competitive people trying to prove they're better than someone else. This isn't why people are driven to seek knowledge or create Art. I'm sure everyone has their reasons for this, but it feels like insecurity from the outside. Looking at debates about AI and Art outside of IP often brings out a lot of misunderstandings about what makes good Art and why Art is a thing man has been compelled to make since the beginning of the species. It takes a lifetime to select techniques and thought patterns that define a unique and authentic voice. A lifetime of working hard on creating things adds up to that voice. When you start to believe that work is in vain because the audience doesn't know the difference it certainly doesn't make it feel rewarding to do.

gibbitz 1y ago
To put it another way: if we made a machine that could instantly create a baby, how would that effect the notion of motherhood? Sure children are adopted or born to surrogacy but the connection formed during gestation and that time itself is a huge part of our notion of the connection between mother and child. Being an Artist is the same thing, an identity bred from gestation proved by the ends. Before the rise of Western culture, ancient cultures didn't attribute an artist to a work. Think Ancient Greece or Egypt. These cultures still produced Art because the culture valued it, but in society these creators were seen as tradesmen or they were slaves. AI used in this way both reduces cultural value and removes or reduces the social status of the creator. I find it telling that LLMs are quite adept at mash-ups and decisions based on data analysis which in my experience is what most business managers do. Why are we not using AI to replace worthless middle management? After all they are lower skilled and higher paid than many developers. I'd argue that anyone who thinks you can replace a job with AI is not doing that job as a career. AI devs who think LLM can replace Java web developers are not Java web developers. Internet trolls who think LLM can replace Artists are not Artists. I think this moment we're in is revealing that we've become so siloed that we have lost our curiosity about each other and cultural history. It's frightening to see how we're changing our culture to accommodate a technology at the expense of people and just how blase we are about it.