zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I've been finding that the strangest part of discussions around art AI among technical people is the complete lack of identification or empathy: it seems to me that most computer programmers should be just as afraid as artists, in the face of technology like this!!! I am a failed artist (read, I studied painting in school and tried to make a go at being a commercial artist in animation and couldn't make the cut), and so I decided to do something easier and became a computer programmer, working for FAANG and other large companies and making absurd (to me!!) amounts of cash. In my humble estimation, making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done. Art AI is terrifying if you want to make art for a living- and, if AI is able to do these astonishingly difficult things, why shouldn't it, with some finagling, also be able to do the dumb, simple things most programmers do for their jobs?

The lack of empathy is incredibly depressing...

>>meebob+kc
One of the things that I find problematic is that we enjoy so many conveniences or efficiencies where taking a step back feels unimaginable. We used to have human computers. Going back on this to rescue an old profession would seem unimaginable. Paying individual taxes is very easy for many nations. Going to what the US has just to rescue many accounting jobs seems absurd.

Now imagine a future where AI can assist in law. Or should we not have that because lawyers pay so much for education and they work so bitterly? Should we do away with farm equipment as well? Should we destroy musical synths so that we can have more musicians?

It’s one thing to say we should have a government program to ease transitions in industry. It’s something else to say that we should hold back technological progress because jobs will be destroyed.

How do we develop a coherent moral framework to address this matter?