About 200 years ago, someone figured out a commercially viably way to make yarn into cloth using a machine, instead of by hand, and it created a significant immediate disruption, but loom-generated clothing quickly became a commodity that made life better for everyone.
That wasn't the last time that a high-labor field was automated, much to the chagrin of current and potential future workers in the field, only for the once-expensive output to become a commodity that significantly raised the quality of life for everyone. Despite the Luddites fears of an economic collapse, it always grows.
The only reason we have desk jobs is because we've automated so much that only a small portion of us have to work on things we need to survive. Most of the tech industry is really an entertainment industry that isn't at all economically necessary. As our culture shifts around the endless entertainment possibilities available, we change what entertainment we want to throw money at, and people do more of that, and less of what they used to do, with minimal impact to the rest of us.
As long as there's enough people and machines making our food and clothing and housing, we're all going to be fine.
Granted, there are plenty of efforts to stop people and machines from growing food or building housing, but that's an entirely different problem.
I believe it is possible for us - all - to adapt regarding the cultural impacts, changes to Art, and decoupling of practice from creation (for things like music, drawings, movies, etc.). In a crude but useful analogy, people still run marathons despite the invention and widespread adoption of cars, bikes, etc. So people will still make Art. People will still appreciate it.
The problem is that art-making-as-a-job is doomed; so are, in the long run, many other 'knowledge worker' jobs, although we can't for certain tell which ones are going to be replaced fully by AI first.
So the hardest problem is not the one relative to creative activity (for pleasure, self-expression, or catharsis), but economic activity. In your words, "Capitalism doesn't work anymore". We can discuss to what point whatever replaces our previous system will still be 'capitalism', but it is apparent that - if it works - it will be very different in many of the aspects we take for granted.
My personal (and likely naive) opinion is that a large part of the political discourse will shift towards trying to define what is -necessary- vs what is -luxury-, as the rewritten order will shift to ensure that all people receive all that is "necessary" and work (whatever it looks like) will be for "luxuries". I don't like it, but I guess that this will be ultimately the question dividing "left" from "right" for a large chunk of this century.
The most salient point here is the societal acceptance of consuming slop - somehow we've gotten to a point where the majority of people are ok with mediocre art. I feel that this is a trend that AI has only amplified. The commodification of attention has gradually led us to a point where we're optimizing for engagement instead of for intrinsic value of the content itself.
Personally, I will continue seeking out high-quality music/art/movies/books that speak to me, and most of my friends do the same. There will always be a demand for human-created art, regardless of any plagiarism or replication by labs.
I totally agree with you. Being an old school dev that had my hay-day back before most of the people on this site was born - I think AI will ultimately be our doom. AI writes it's own next-gen, and what is left for us?
About 200 years ago, someone figured out a commercially viably way to make yarn into cloth using a machine, instead of by hand, and it created a significant immediate disruption, but loom-generated clothing quickly became a commodity that made life better for everyone.
That wasn't the last time that a high-labor field was automated, much to the chagrin of current and potential future workers in the field, only for the once-expensive output to become a commodity that significantly raised the quality of life for everyone. Despite the Luddites fears of an economic collapse, it always grows.
The only reason we have desk jobs is because we've automated so much that only a small portion of us have to work on things we need to survive. Most of the tech industry is really an entertainment industry that isn't at all economically necessary. As our culture shifts around the endless entertainment possibilities available, we change what entertainment we want to throw money at, and people do more of that, and less of what they used to do, with minimal impact to the rest of us.
As long as there's enough people and machines making our food and clothing and housing, we're all going to be fine.
Granted, there are plenty of efforts to stop people and machines from growing food or building housing, but that's an entirely different problem.
I believe it is possible for us - all - to adapt regarding the cultural impacts, changes to Art, and decoupling of practice from creation (for things like music, drawings, movies, etc.). In a crude but useful analogy, people still run marathons despite the invention and widespread adoption of cars, bikes, etc. So people will still make Art. People will still appreciate it.
The problem is that art-making-as-a-job is doomed; so are, in the long run, many other 'knowledge worker' jobs, although we can't for certain tell which ones are going to be replaced fully by AI first.
So the hardest problem is not the one relative to creative activity (for pleasure, self-expression, or catharsis), but economic activity. In your words, "Capitalism doesn't work anymore". We can discuss to what point whatever replaces our previous system will still be 'capitalism', but it is apparent that - if it works - it will be very different in many of the aspects we take for granted.
My personal (and likely naive) opinion is that a large part of the political discourse will shift towards trying to define what is -necessary- vs what is -luxury-, as the rewritten order will shift to ensure that all people receive all that is "necessary" and work (whatever it looks like) will be for "luxuries". I don't like it, but I guess that this will be ultimately the question dividing "left" from "right" for a large chunk of this century.
AI can solve some genuine problems in the world, but we shouldn’t forget it’s also a massive power grab by the very wealthy.
The most salient point here is the societal acceptance of consuming slop - somehow we've gotten to a point where the majority of people are ok with mediocre art. I feel that this is a trend that AI has only amplified. The commodification of attention has gradually led us to a point where we're optimizing for engagement instead of for intrinsic value of the content itself.
Personally, I will continue seeking out high-quality music/art/movies/books that speak to me, and most of my friends do the same. There will always be a demand for human-created art, regardless of any plagiarism or replication by labs.
It’s just a tool dude/tte.
You’re caught in the hype, and it’s all around you in your internet bubble.
Tune out, listen to some music, watch a movie, ring your Mum/Mom and ask how her day was.
A tool with a monthly subscription isn't a tool, it's a service.
> All the values (measured by money) created in this world is sucked by the LLM owners/producers
Intellectual property was always a farce. It really is as simple as that.
In the public sphere yes. A long term effect of this will be what ends up in the public sphere won't be the same as it once was.
I totally agree with you. Being an old school dev that had my hay-day back before most of the people on this site was born - I think AI will ultimately be our doom. AI writes it's own next-gen, and what is left for us?