zlacker

[parent] [thread] 9 comments
1. CyanBi+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-15 13:07:24
Lack of empathy is because we are discussing about systems, not feelings

At the dawn of mechanization, these same arguments were being used by the luddites, I'd recommend you to read them, it was quite an interesting situation, same as now

The reality is that advances such as these can't be stopped, even if you forbid ml legislation in the US there are hundreds of other countries which won't care same as it happens with piracy

replies(6): >>astran+d1 >>jacobl+R3 >>hippie+H5 >>locopa+Y5 >>odessa+IM >>meroes+cT1
2. astran+d1[view] [source] 2022-12-15 13:13:27
>>CyanBi+(OP)
I recommend reading the part in Capital where Marx makes fun of them for being opposed to productivity.
3. jacobl+R3[view] [source] 2022-12-15 13:25:54
>>CyanBi+(OP)
Remember, luddites largely weren't against technology.

What they were however was against was companies using that technology to slash their wages in exchange for being forced to do significantly more dangerous jobs.

In less than a decade, textile work went from a safe job with respectable pay for artisans and craftsmen into one of the most dangerous jobs of the industrialised era with often less than a third of the pay and the workers primarily being children.

That's what the luddites were afraid of. And the government response was military/police intervention, breaking of any and all strikes, and harsh punishments such as execution for damaging company property.

4. hippie+H5[view] [source] 2022-12-15 13:35:42
>>CyanBi+(OP)
I don't disagree, except I don't get what you mean with "because we are discussing systems, not feelings."

I think artists feeling like shit in this situation is totally understandable. I'm just a dilettante painter and amateur hentai sketcher, but some of the real artists I know are practically in the middle of an existential crisis. Feeling empathy for them is not the same as thinking that we should make futile efforts to halt the progress of this technology.

replies(1): >>Kalium+ro
5. locopa+Y5[view] [source] 2022-12-15 13:37:16
>>CyanBi+(OP)
Perhaps we should learn some of the lessons from that time. A large group of people's lives became markedly worse while a small group profited from their labors.
◧◩
6. Kalium+ro[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-15 14:55:44
>>hippie+H5
I agree, but we should pay attention when we are asked for empathy. In this very thread we have an excellent demonstration of how easy it is for an appeal to feel empathy for people's position to change into an appeal to protect the same people's financial position.

I'll go so far as to say that in many cases, displaying empathy for the artists without also advocating for futile efforts to halt the progress of this technology will be regarded as a lack of empathy.

replies(1): >>except+eq2
7. odessa+IM[view] [source] 2022-12-15 16:31:59
>>CyanBi+(OP)
the luddites may be one of the most singularly wrongly vilified groups in human history.
8. meroes+cT1[view] [source] 2022-12-15 21:42:48
>>CyanBi+(OP)
If the advances create catastrophic consequences there will be a stop by definition. Death of art(ists) and coders may not be a catastrophe, but it could be coincident with one. From OP, "Art AI is terrifying if you want to make art for a living". Empathize a little with that to see coding AI making coding not a way of life. Empathize even more and see few people having productive ways of life due to general purpose AI. The call to empathize is not about "feelings" necessarily, it is a cognitive exercise to imagine future consequences that aren't obvious yet.
◧◩◪
9. except+eq2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 01:15:27
>>Kalium+ro
It seems like you conflate protecting the financial position with futile efforts to halt the progress of this technology.

You can make sure the people from which their jobs where taken by an AI should be able to live from its proceeds. We all benefit and make progress.

replies(1): >>Kalium+HSs
◧◩◪◨
10. Kalium+HSs[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-23 19:56:36
>>except+eq2
I am not so much conflating them by accident as expressing my belief that the two are the same. I am not convinced that we can make sure the people from which their jobs where taken by an AI will be able to live from its proceeds.

There's a very real chance that adding these costs on top will drive development away from the sort that pays the people who lose out. For example, attempting to require licensing for images may simply push model training towards public domain materials. Then the models still work and the usable commercial art is still generated cheaply, but there are no living artists getting paid.

We should not blithely assume an ideal option that makes everyone happy is readily available or even at all. The core incentive of a lot of users is to spend less on commercial imagery. The core incentive of artists is to get paid at least as much as before. We should take seriously the possibility that there is not a medium in there that satisfies everyone.

[go to top]