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
Making money through art is already not a feasible career, as you yourself learned. If you want a job that millions of people do for fun in their free time, you can expect that job to be extremely hard to get and to pay very little.

The solution isn't to halt technological progress to try to defend the few jobs that are actually available in that sector, the solution is to fight forward to a future where no one has to do dull and boring things just to put food on the table. Fight for future where people can pursue what they want regardless of whether it's profitable.

Most of that fight is social and political, but progress in ML is an important precursor. We can't free everyone from the dull and repetitive until we have automated all of it.

>>lolind+jI
>The solution isn't to halt technological progress

Technological progress is not a linear deterministic progression. We decide how to progress every step of the way. The problem is that we are making dogshit decisions for some reason

Maybe we lack the creativity to envision alternative futures. How does a society become so uncreative I wonder

>>stemlo+MY
You'll find its nearly impossible to imagine a world without capitalism.

Capitalism is particularly good at weaponizing our own ideas against us. See large corporations co-opting anti-capitalist movements for sales and PR.

Pepsi-co was probably mad that they couldn't co-op "defund the police", "fuck 12", and "ACAB" like they could with "black lives matter".

Anything near and dear to us will be manipulated into a scientific formula to make a profit, and anything that cannot is rejected by any kind of mainstream media.

See: Capitalist Realism and Manufactured Consent(for how advertising effects freedom of speech in any media platform).

>>MSFT_E+wx1
It’s pretty easy to imagine a world without capitalism. It’s the one where the government declares you a counterrevolutionary hedonist for wanting to do art and forces you to work for the state owned lithium mine.

Mixed social-democratic economies are nice and better than plutocracies, but they have capitalism; they just have other economic forms alongside it.

(Needing to profit isn’t exclusive to capitalism either. Socialist societies also need productivity and profit, because they need to reinvest.)

>>astran+lY1
Or a world where the gouvernement runs hospitals & schools and pay for it, no matter the cost. Effectively pulling those out of the market.

It’s not a fantasy idea. I grow up there and it’s still working.

It’s not out of beautiful idea either. But sheer pragmatism.

A country will always need those things and those are important things. We might as well invest in them for the long run.

Clearly those are not hip idea anymore. Oh well.