zlacker

This has been a line of argument from every Luddite since the start of the industrial revolution. But it is not true. Almost all the productivity gains of the last 250 years have been dispersed into the population. A few early movers have managed to capture some fraction of the value created by new technology, the vast majority has gone to improve people's quality of life, which is why we live longer and richer lives than any generation before us. Some will lose their jobs and that is fine because human demand for goods and services is infinite, there will always be jobs to do.

I really doubt that AI will somehow be our successors. Machines and AI need microprocessors so complex that it took us 70 years of exponential growth and multiple trillion-dollar tech companies to train even these frankly quite unimpressive models. These AI are entirely dependent on our globalized value chains with capital costs so high that there are multiple points of failure.

A human needs just food, clean water, a warm environment and some books to carry civilization forward.

>>idleha+(OP)
There is a significant contingent of influential people that disagree. "Why the future doesn't need us" (https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/), Ray Kurzweil etc. This is qualitatively different than what the Luddites faced, it concerns all of us and touches the essence of what makes us human. This isn't the kind of technology that has the potential to make our lives better in the long run, it will almost surely be used for more harm than good. Not only are these models trained on the collectively created output of humanity, the key application areas are to subjugate, control and manipulate us. I agree with you that this will not happen immediately, because of the very real complexities of physical manufacturing, but if this part of the process isn't stopped in its tracks, the resulting progress is unlikely to be curtailed. I at least fundamentally think that the use of all of our data and output to train these models is unethical, especially if the output is not freely shared and made available.

>>orbifo+h9
It seems we are running out of ways to reinvent ourselves as machines and automation replace us. At some point, perhaps approaching, the stated goal of improving quality of life and reduce human suffering ring false. What is human being if we have nothing to do? Where are the vast majority of people supposed to find meaning?

>>yeknod+5r
I don't see why machines automatically producing art takes away the meaning of making art. There's already a million people much better at art than you or I will ever be producing it for free online. Now computers can do it too. Is that supposed to take away my desire to make art?

>>yeknod+5r
Where do you find meaning in life today? What do you do on weekends and vacations?

Another place to look is the financially independent. What are they doing with their time?

>>yeknod+5r
I've been lucky enough to build and make things and work in jobs where I can see the product of my work - real, tangible, creative, and extremely satisfying. I can only do this work as long people want and need the work to be done.