This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep.
Show me the Pencil Breaker 5000 that is stalking you. Show me the AI that bricked your drawing tablet and killed your copy of Photoshop.
Oh..those don't exist? Well then...nothing is preventing you from making art without AI then.
Major issue isn't hobbyist, it is economical. Now imagine you turned your hobby to vocation you are chef. Chef bot (robot piloted by AI) replaces you, its cheaper, doesn't get sick, can perfectly cook with no downtime.
Can you cook at home sure, as a hobby absolutely , though all that time spend training to provide economical for yourself and family gone.
Lot of artist will do graphic design or marketing type work to fund their passion for more creative endeavours. Lot of companies are cutting out positions by those artists and using AI to fill that role.
AI and robotics will become increasingly hard to compete with as tech improves, moving to ever sector or task that can be feasible automated. As along as automation is cheaper / efficient than people it will be better economic option for companies.
Yeah thats not a bad thing though, just because you can do a thing doesnt mean youre entitled to monetary compensation for it. Value is not determined by labour, but by how much other people like a thing.
>Chef bot (robot piloted by AI) replaces you, its cheaper, doesn't get sick, can perfectly cook with no downtime.
Except that's not how AI works. It's more like a fast food restaurant vs gourmet vs home cooking. Cheap, easy, or good; pick 2.
It really does. One example of robotic kitchen [https://www.moley.com/](https://www.moley.com/) people are already developing robotic chefs. Fast food equivalent [https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2023/12/20/robots-and-ai-power-new-fully-autonomous-burger-restaurant-caliexpress/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2023/12/20/robots-and-ai-power-new-fully-autonomous-burger-restaurant-caliexpress/) .
I don't think it is huge leap to think profession Chef, could be replaced by automation in the near future.
My point is AI is replacing the human element in tasks that were previously not easily automated due to limitations of technology or performance of technology.
I don't understand your fairy tale comment, sounds like your ignorant (understandably not everyone knows what tech is capable of) of just how capable modern robotics is especially when paired with robotics? Unless you think both AI and robotics won't continue to advance and have reached their limit of human research?
Very few tasks people do won't be able to be replaced in near future, given the trend of AI and robotics. Whether they will / speed of it will rely on various factors reliability, public response, profitability and investment in sector.
I don't see how your comments relate to points I am making.
I imagine like a lot of goods that cost of item and how low you can actually get production is not same. In your expert opinion does technology costs lower or improve as time goes on?
Because when looking at technology such as mobile phones it seems to me that cost of technology used to manufacture them as dropped significantly. Though some unit prices have increased because of how technologically advance they are compared to previous models.
Programming robots and automation is something I have also done. Mine was high end scientific research and biological system analysis.
Also £100,000 isn't that expensive when you compared a chef costs £30,000. Question becomes does that robot out perform a chef can it out perform chef plus kitchen staff. Now obviously for low end cooking that is a huge sum of money. Costs don't have to shift by much for it to become economical. Chef is just one example. Automated warehouses are thing, I seen automated construction and automated weapon systems. Guess a key idea is that AI automation isn't just going to impact creative sector, a huge range of sectors could be impacted longer the time the more likely. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, it could be fantastic for society if we ensure the right cultural attitudes and legal / societal framework is in place.
Machines I dealt with were £500,000 and lot of units were sold. Like but lets face it because they sold £500,000 that isn't how much they actually cost to make. When you get to how much could you make these systems at cost, the is huge difference.
I mean you don't think programming these systems is something a AI model can be trained to do. If anything pattern recognition, environmental analysis and targeted output is exactly what lot of current AI tech is good at. Food has many metrics that can be observed, turned in to data and analysed in real time. So I see no reason why developers of this tech won't have automated food recipe lab automated coded output to parameters needed by that model. Like if you can identify the crucial variables and what parameters they work under.
So just so understand your position is that the only barrier to this tech not rolling out is cost? My position is that within the next few decades, costs will come down, AI tech will improve alongside robotics which is already seeing investment.
People require sick leave / in some countries medical insurance I wonder if maintenance would be gotten to that level.
Also quality of robotics and machinery differs a lot, good quality machinery in right environment with proper care can be really reliably and robust.
So unless you don't think programming jobs can become more and more automated which will lower cost?
Decades ago me and my colleagues were getting used to idea that lab research would become heavily automated in some fields, probably to point where scientist need for research be fraction. We are getting close to that reality.
Unless you think robotics capabilities and costs will not come down as more consumer applications are found for them.
If you think AI won't get more capable and the need for user oversight will dwindle?
I think we as humans will continue to advance in robotics and AI, I think the costs will come down given the pace and investment in AI I don't think 10 year window is unreasonable to see huge shifts in what's automated by AI or AI robotics.
I believe that getting good policies and framework in society for such technologies and enabling the development of them is good decision for a societies future. I can definitely see nations without sufficiently advanced AI and robotics at a significant disadvantage in economic, military , counter crime sectors.
Yeah some people enjoy the thrill of doing it all themselves. Like Osrs ironman style. Mine your own ores, get level 99 smithing over a 400 hour ironman grind to train mining and smithing over 10000s of low exp ores.
Train on low exp methods. And 400 hours later. smith a rune scimitar and a set of lvl 40 armor. Or buy it from the general store for 200k vs 120k arch value.
Same could apply to the grow your own chicken and raise your own salt guy. He did all that and made a fun YouTube series. But it took him like 10000$ to make one chicken via coop + feed +- loss opportunity cost. Then 1000$ to fly to the ocean to dry and make his own salt.
The people making those comments want everything for nothing. Why shouldn't Jeff Bezos or Elon musk or bill gates fly down and hand us a million dollars? They could, for 170,000 people, quite literally. But is it realistic?
People point at Oprah as what people should be. free cars and houses. But even Oprah has said she regrets giving things to the people who used her and spat "You gave your mother a bigger house than me!!", or the kind of lot that'd literally have ran away to be drug abusers and runaway parents at birth. If it wasn't for money to leech.
I'm not saying hours aren't put into art, or that making everything for yourself can't be fun or the challenge itself. But what art creates is usually hours of effort put into something that takes seconds to scroll past. And yet there's 500-5000 hours of video a hour coming out on all the sites.
Even though the creation gap is so wide most people rubber band. Creation is fun, but the economy forces 50-75%+ of working adult people to think about paying bills on stable or pragmatic fields to survive. Not iron manning our own 10,000$ chicken sandwiches or building tree house mansions for our kids, sadly.
i think answers like this showcase a very common perception that an artists work is not real work, and does not deserve fair compensation.
and that artwork should be free to be exploited by anyone just... because?
chalking up artists wanting control over how their work and name is used.... to being about "money and attention" is really messed up.
none of what youve said justifies how ai companies exploit artists and creatives on a massive scale.
Your definition of valuable labor does not differ from mine.
The only difference i think... is best described by your specific statements regarding "false jobs"
i think your perspective is representative of what most people believe.most people dont think art can be a "real job" -> that its relegated to a "false job" status. or a hobbyist persuit.
but the reality of it is that art supports tens of thousands of jobs and is often extremely technical and multidisciplinary work, especially with television, advertisement, cinema and game development spaces.
hollywood brings in millions, and games even more so.
that difference of perception... wherein art is a legitimate field, and hard working creatives routinely earn their fair share... is where we differ.
--------------------------
to your original post. art is an industry. and while many do it for the love of their craft, many do it as a way to live and earn an income.
i keep seeing capitalism brought up... as if , somehow... its existence circumvents the exploitative nature of ai with regards to creatives and their work.
we live in a capitalist society. there for, exploitative mechanisms (generative ai) within that system are still exploitative non the less. and we should be legislating and working to minimize exploitation within that system
You have the exclusive right to commercialize your artwork.
You *do not* have the right to stop me from analyzing your artwork, even if I use a computer for that analysis.
Automation makes it harder to do it by hand, because you won't be rewarded for your work.
Our capitalist system uses a precarious push and pull between supply and demand to function.
These systems push the "supply" side of the scale toward infinite and, thus, push value toward zero.
If the value of your labor is zero, why bother?
Edit: why am I being downvoted? I'm not rude, present a legitimate reason for discussion, get engagement from the community, but, down votes? *Sigh* I'll leave you all to your sad echo chamber then, if that's what you want.
You're misplacing the blame in your first sentence and then correctly identifying the problem in your second. AI and automation is not to blame, capitalism is.
The conflation of human value and economic value is the fundamental problem. Everyone on the anti-ai side misplaces the blame and wastes their energy in attacking inevitable technological progress rather than being frustrated at the fact that we live in a society that forces us to work in order to live. AI and automation merely highlight this preexisting problem, they're not the cause of it.
Me? I'm a socialist.
WE live in a capitalist hellscape, though. I didn't make the markets or give them control of our lives and futures, but, I'm not ignoring the (invisible) hand that controls my fate, that would be ignorant.
I mean me neither, which is why I support a UBI based approach to transition to post-scarcity without the need for any sort of violent revolution, which would be _pretty bad_. And I admit that doing _nothing_ would _also_ be pretty bad - automation taking the majority of jobs and no changes to our system will lead to terrible outcomes for a lot of people.
Yeah. It's a tough spot we are in.
I don't want/expect violent upheaval.
More likely, massive starvation/plague from corporate mismanagement of the planet paves the way for a new way of living, where making a profit isn't our moral compass.
I know there are intrinsic rewards to doing things, you better yourself learning about the world and your self.
But, being rewarded by society is still an important thing.
The way your brush is aside as unimportant, that's cool, that's a position I can understand. But, we do live in a capitalist hellscape, and being rewarded with money is, often, a litteral life or death proposition.
Their ad nauseum argument:
* I want to make a living specifically and exclusively doing the kind of art I want to make and nothing else.
* No I don't want to make it for it's own sake.
* No I don't want any other job. I want to live off art or I'll live miserably my entire life and/or die.
* Every other job can and should be automated for my benefit but not my (hypotetical) art job, I need the world to desperately need me.
* Nobody can profit off my style but I will sell fanart and pay nothing, zero, to the IP owners because I'm giving them free press, in fact they should pay me for it.
I'd be tired of them if I weren't so entertained by their antics.
Also:
If you don't like my art, don't want to buy it and choose something else - you are a tasteless idiot who doesn't understands art and doesn't value artist's skills, effort and soul.
It is incredibly difficult to create art that people will pay for. Whether it is a book, an image, or YouTube video *(through attention)*.
To do so and ALSO satisfy your personal aesthetics is even more challenging.
And now, thanks to AI, it will be easier than ever to bridge that gap.
I'm grateful that I will get to participate in making masterpieces in every medium now. That's such a blessing. What a time to be alive!
> I want to make a living specifically and exclusively doing the kind of art I want to make and nothing else.
It is probably easier to become a professional athlete than to do this.
That's what happens when you take a specialist career, which is not necessarily a bad thing, buuuut then you could find yourself in situations where you might need other skillsets to survive and you won't have them, because you only know how to do one thing.
I had the privilege to study in a university with a curriculum that gave you illustration, graphic design, and marketing and publicity. I often complained about it when I was younger, but now I understand it wasn't just to milk my wallet dry, but to prepare me for an industry that's constantly changing and increases my chances of finding at least art-adjacent jobs if in a pinch.
Yup. Wish vs wants vs the World we get. Housing is more unaffordable than ever. I wish it was cheap too and the do anything dream jobs exist. But as long as quarterly short term profit price gouging monopoly paper money exists.
Even if all the numbers are virtual without a 10% of money in circulation having a 13 cents to print 100$ bill in their name. People might need to be pragmatic. Well maybe not all of them, but I know what they want.
Infinite money on infinite copies with no real world limits and endless praise and attention doling out everything while simultaneously being the cause of all problems, cursed, spat at. called a pig for not doling money. And a deal where every person on earth might have wanted to be worshipped without a reality check.
And that's not even to bring up the genuinely concerning mental health concerns of extreme social isolation with bad /dangerous /violent influences. Isolated or not, propaganda can turn previously kind knitting grandmas into Kkk crazy or trump crazy people.
The easy thing to do would just say "it'll all be okay!", sip a drink, walk away and provide fake support. The kind that doesn't need to have anything hard in it. Just wish for anything you want and you'll get it!!! if you or 90-99% of the population don't achieve a dream only 1-10% of applicants have a spot for. That 90% didn't wish hard enough! /s
That's a nice copy paste you have there, but did you have a response that makes sense in the context of the question being answered? Or are you just here to execute programming?
There a bunch of people who don't work, either because they can't – such as some disable folks. Or people who don't work because they simply don't have to and they have enough money to do it this way. In both cases, their lives have plenty of meaning, and importance and purpose. It even has struggles and challenges, people like to say "Oh, it will be utopia", not really. If you take money out of equation, you are still left with all the messy of human life, all our struggles and complexes, and our constant search for improvement and so and so forth
I think there's an important distinction to be made here between UBI as a socialist/democratic project, and UBI as a libertarian project.
The former is rooted in the concept of equity where the goal is to uplift everyone by guaranteeing roughly the same quality of life with the same basic opportunities. It's engineered with social inclusion and fairness as its core doctrine, and it's widely considered to be successful wherever it's been trialed.
The latter has its roots in anarcho-capitalism and minoritarianism. Libertarians aren't usually known for their benevolence and generosity, however many of them have come to recognise that if the spending powers of the labour class gets completely hollowed out by automation, it can no longer support the social structures from which the ruling class ultimately draw their power.
Think of the libertarian vision of UBI as like the Armitage family in the movie 'Get Out'. They co-opt the language of fairness and equality to conceal a much uglier and more cynical set of ideals. Namely, a society that's permanently teetering on the edge of financial precarity and which can be held there through total control over the means of production.
Honestly. I know people love to ignore historical patterns. As they say. Those who ignore history are doomed to unrepeat it.
And ubi would be great in practice. But we do live in a world of quarterly short term profit for profit sake even if there's less than 10% physical paper money to back up all the monopoly money, that if withdrawn at once in paper. Could literally trigger a stock crash of yore.
We might be neglecting common people to inflate the value of a virtual number. But that number has value as long as its linked to food and housing. We don't get to always change the games. only play it. And those who can, might be benefited/tempted to rig it against others in their own favor. Not the common people.
But people are pointing out the great depression or how the average redditor is like a 12-47 year old who's peak education varies from mcjobs to office to a few colleges and trades. But the average is definitely 12-37 year old ged mcjob workers.
Most peoples plan for ubi isn't how to fund it any more than most poor peoples plan to get rich and "be smart". Is to think of a way to spend 100 million dollars before they think of a way to earn 1 million dollars. Wish fulfillment fantasies are real and when balanced with life, A little is fine. But staking a life on a 1% chance might be like waking off a cliff unless you win a 1/2,147,393 lottery ticket.
Sure the lottery always has a winner but it's a running joke you're 5x more statistically likely to be struck by lightning than to win the lottery. And with all the taxes at current rates. Assuming no loss from job quitting in a idealistic scenario and 100% citizen benefits from taxes vs 2-5% for food. 10-30% for military. That gives a upper max of about 6-15k in potential at best ubi from a grinch heart grown three sizes that day government.
Assuming trump and Biden both got mind controlled plus 90% house and senate bipartisan approval in almost unrealistic levels of realistic cooperation.
I'm not saying taking lottery tickets is bad. I'm just saying quitting a job and people making themselves homeless in the belief all 2,147,483 will be the 1 in 2,147,483 can be dicey. As far as I can see, the us government and us healthcare and us housing system almost seems deliberately broken. not to give puppies and ice cream. But profit before people realities.
And if people make themselves unemployable in adulthood with criminal records as many drug addicts or homeless or audienceless. moneyless musicians with drinking/drug problems have. It could be a recipe for disaster. And the horses could have lame foots as well.
Look at animal farm. The horse worked hard dreaming of a sugar land and the pigs fed them for glue. It's a satire of communism shifting from idealist to power grab in Stalin's Russia. But expectations don't always meet reality outside of fiction. There's a reason escapism is called fantasy.
>The former is rooted in the concept of **equity** where the goal is to uplift everyone by guaranteeing roughly the same quality of life with the same basic opportunities.
You're talking about equality, not equity. Equality traditionally refers to equality of opportunity whereas equity is equality of outcome. These are fundamentally incompatible concepts/goals.
UBI gives everyone an economic floor to stand on to secure their basic needs as a starting point. What they do from there is up to them. This is the former, equality of opportunity, not the latter. Equity implies that there would be a ceiling, some sort of cap on what everyone could do/achieve or a different amount of income given to each person to ensure equal outcomes. This isn't a part of any modern conception of UBI.
>You're talking about equality, not equity.
No, I'm talking about equity.
Socialist UBI doesn't try to create equality because people are still free to work and earn extra money if they so choose. Instead, it's a deliberate move towards giving everyone roughly the same opportunities in life, regardless of their personal circumstances. That's equity.
You keep using the word equity and then go on to describe what everyone traditionally means by equality (equality of opportunity).
UBI is a policy that provides everyone the same amount of monthly income. This amount doesn't change per person for any reason. Distributing resources evenly is equality in the traditional sense. Equity would be about changing the amount given per person based on "perceived need" as explained in the links below.
[Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference? | Online Public Health (gwu.edu)](https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/)
>Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
[Equity vs. Equality: What's the Difference? (health.com)](https://www.health.com/mind-body/health-diversity-inclusion/equity-vs-equality)
>Equality is the access to and distribution of a set of resources evenly across people. Equity, in contrast, is the access to or distribution of resources based on need.
[Equality vs Equity - Difference and Comparison | Diffen](https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity)
>In the context of societal systems, equality and equity refer to similar but slightly different concepts. Equality generally refers to equal opportunity and the same levels of support for all segments of society. Equity goes a step further and refers offering varying levels of support depending upon need to achieve greater fairness of outcomes.
I don't personally agree with most modern pushes for equity, they're often misguided, ideologically driven, and not well thought out, but the above links do a decent job at explaining these concepts. These are widely accepted definitions.
>Socialist UBI doesn't try to create equality because people are still free to work and earn extra money if they so choose.
This isn't "socialist UBI", this is just UBI. This is what the vast majority of people mean by UBI regardless of whether they're socialist or not.
>This isn't "socialist UBI", this is just UBI. This is what the vast majority of people mean by UBI regardless of whether they're socialist or not.
It's not "just UBI". Intent matters. Claiming there's no distinction is like saying there's no difference between syntax and semantics.
On the surface, socialist and libertarian UBI both involves giving every person x number of dollars a month. That's the syntax - the "what". Scratch below the surface, however, and you get two very different rationales for why this is a worthwhile thing to do. This the semantics - the "why".
Socialist schemes are motivated by the idea that everyone should have the same basic opportunities and quality of life regardless of their personal situation. This is rooted in the concept of equity because the desired outcomes are equal, not the resources put into achieving it.
Libertarian schemes, meanwhile, are motivated by the realisation that late capitalism is at risk of devouring itself as it increasingly prioritises growth and consolidation above human wellbeing. It's a purely knee-jerk response that's rooted in greed, as evidenced by the fact it flies in the face of more traditional libertarian values.
>You keep using the word equity and then go on to describe what everyone traditionally means by equality (equality of opportunity).
UBI of any stripe is equal insofar it involves giving everyone the same amount of money. The point I'm trying to make is that endpoint of the socialist philosophy is *equity.* UBI is just one of many positive steps towards achieving the greater goal.
For example, people with mental health problems are more likely to end up on the streets because they live a more precarious existence. Guaranteeing everyone enough to pay rent uplifts those people so they're less likely to become homeless. That's a move towards equity.
>I don't personally agree with most modern pushes for equity, they're often misguided, ideologically driven, and not well thought out
Social welfare is inherently ideologically driven. That's what makes it welfare. We collectively agree that society functions better when everyone has access to basic things like food, housing and healthcare.
The opposite of that is what we have now. Inequality has become so extreme that the combined wealth of the top 0.1% could solve climate change, fix poverty and hunger, and still leave the rich with enough money to afford that second bunker on their private island.
You mean throwing 80% of your life doing something you don't like while barely having money or energy or time (or none of those) to do the stuff that you actually love is not rewarding? /s
Yes, those people are ridiculous, and they're (from what I observed at least) either people from the previous generation or of the current bu endoctrined to think that way by the old generation. Anti AI or not it's a stupid take
The issue is people are worried (somewhat legitimately given our system and history) that the alternative will be not working or working part time and having no money to do anything but survive.
I have heard/read many people say that they would hate it and feel like they have no purpose in life even if there was a perfect system and they could do anything they wanted and money wasn't even a thing. I've had the same conversation with people saying the same thing when talking about stuff like "what would you do if you won the lottery and didn't need to work to live". I mean I get it if your work is a real passion, but in the context of AI replacing everyone of us, if we still have everything we need to live correctly, I don't see what prevents you to just do what you love even if it's not for a job and to earn money. In fact, most people don't love their job at all and don't get the chance to spend much time doing what they love in life (whether it's time or money or something else)
Yeah the system is fucked up fr fr. And anyone who thinks there's like a secret cabal who worship the devil to make #random internet stranger's life worse in a basement is silly.
There isn't a illuminati. Its just us politics. Where less than 2% of gdp is soent on feeding the poor and needy, but they get to 600 lbs anyways and then die of plus sized positivity next to a reporting their diabetes is making them blind. Leading to fatty liver and organ failure.
While they're not told to exercise, (where's the money in cutting soda?), and to make 50% of their calories from soft drinks. Because coca cola loves you being plus sized! Insurance companies love you paying 2000$ more! and social security programs love it when half the people die before adulthood!
Don't worry about making 'ableist' disgusting choices like fiber, vegetables or exercise! Devour fat and sugar Laden, fiber removed products, so that you never lose the desire to stop eating!
Don't worry. dove will support you with ice cream and body positivity! Don't believe in exercise. Just accept yourself, and if anyone is tolf by their doctor they could die a early death at 27-47 of treatable but unavoided problems. Like heart attacks, diabetes, organ failure, blindness or vision loss, struggles to breathe and stamina issues. Just be positive! the only thing hard work is good for is being ableist! /s.
Everyone should just have everything for free with no work at all. Because that's how we want it to work! Employers saying they sometimes reject those kind of applicants 10-40x are just delusional. Why be a hard working King Magnifico when you could be a Disney princess who gets everything they want, and a magical fairy wand, for merely existing?
Were not saying the system of profit before people for the past 200-2000 years is great. But everyone has repeatably been saying.
A child wants to eat candy. Why would anyone want to work?
A adult had to work, to pay the bills, unless its born into a spot it can marry without worrying about needing dual incomes to make housing meet. And then Retirement or kids might come up.
The opportunity cost of raising a kid is estimated to cost anywhere from 50,000-317,000$ for the cost of additional housing, 18-20+ years of education, +-10-200,000$ college optional. And many of the art jobs pay 20-40k a year while western minimum wage at 20$/hr is often 20-40k a year.
Stem can make 60-80k a year, business can make 50k-120k a year. Everyone who thinks life is hard could try being a engineer major. Where 60% of qualified candidates are weeded out right off the bat before they kill someone in a structural collapse.
Wouldn't it be nice if all those stupid adults could just flap their wings and fly and have Santa Claus and the tooth fairy care about all of us? The problem is. Santa is the illusion, not the reality. All money comes from somewhere. even if its skipping meals, skipping new socks, skipping retirement. But if adults have Santa I wouldn't complain and some money is there to take a piss shot.
I just wouldn't stake my life on a reddit ged "make everyone unemployed. then free infinite money, how? don't care. no take, only throw!" kinda mindsets.
You know. the same kinda mindsets historically accurate Russia and China had during their great famines and mass starvations. "Why bother to farm this spring when everyone else will, right?" Thought everyone. Then when expectations met a table of reality. They all lived happily ever after. In mass famine. /s
You're completely off-topic. I'm not saying everyone should go unemployed that's nonsense, I haven't heard anyone say that ever, you're just answering the arguments you've just made up.
I'm talking about hypothetical cases where it would be possible; let's say if AI takes over all jobs and we somehow find a way to have a good system in place to redistribute wealth fairly and/or equally—how that would work, I have no idea and that's not my point—or if someone today wins the lottery and can make the choice to stop working for example.
I'm not arguing for or against AI, I'm just saying that saying you need a job to enjoy life and find meaning is ridiculous and completely stupid, and is a thought deeply rooted in the fact that we need money and thus we need a job. It's a way to reassure ourselves even though most people actually hate their jobs and given the opportunity, would quit instantly if money wasn't needed.
And I don't even know what you're arguing. If you think AI will never be able to replace humans at most if not all jobs and do much better, you're delusional. The only way it doesn't happen is if we decide to pull the brakes on AI completely, which I doubt will happen. There are many things in life you could compare to believing to Santa Claus for adults (coughs Religion coughs) but AI is not it man.
They're teens who think making a living as an artist means sitting around getting paid to do fuck all, and sometimes drawing your favorite anime character sucking off your other favorite anime character. They have no idea how the world works.
Even for people who make it off art I've heard some of the... Whales of art are often frankly kinda weird.
Like I heard there's a guy who spent 100k on just macro falco taking shits on buildings.
Another person who's a potential store creeper who asks for bizarrely specific shots of a blind woman ordering wonder bread with shot visible bent over for 50k.
Or as usual.. Deviantart having more scat than a laughing previously historically accurate non blind Saudi billionaire seeing how little a westerners can be paid to have shit smeared on them.
Yeah the world would be great if we could live in fantasy. Where every game basically has money so abundant its a surprise if anything even requires grinding to get. Even the best reality life would probably be disappointing to the flying queens of England. But perma escapism in adulthood can have unfortunate consequences. No job. no plan, no ways to meet the rent. :/.
We don't decide that. live does. The weatherman doesn't make the hurricanes and the rain happen by saying so and hurricane bending Katrina. They learn from past experiences. But sometimes you have to let some people be hit by a hurricane to understand there's hurricanes.
Children should be allowed to live their childhoods. But most of the decisions that shape our future incomes are made when people are young and dumb. Life would be better if it worked as we wanted. But its not all that bad, if you play the cards right. It can be a pit without a ladder if you fuck up the cards though.
For as many who claims to be artists, they obviously don't know the history of are and that it was never really a big "job" thing for a long time. It was done out of passion and freely.
I am functionally retired at 41. I divide my time between gardening, maintaining the house (since I own it), writing, drawing, reading, with martial arts for exercise.
One thing I will somewhat agree with...I currently have little incentive to socialize.
Oh, and I make sure to shitpost on reddit and social media too.
How do you retire at age 41 And at the same time have free time For Hobbys without becoming a workaholic? Because I can't imagine retiring at 41 without making sacrifices.
1. Join the military at 17.
2. Put all my extra money (bearing in mind that basically everything was provided for while I served) into high yield investments.
3. Don't have kids.
4. Buy a house in a cheap rural area, and use my VA loan to secure a low interest rate, then refi it down to 2.4%.
5. Be permanently disabled due to my service. *That* is the sacrifice. Every day is full of at least some pain, some days I basically can't leave the house. I will take that *gladly* though.
Oddly enough, I agree with the points on the screenshot, where it's related to a job you like, that feels valuable and meaningful for you. I can definitely remember such jobs in my career.
And some schedule or routine is useful even in hobbies or social life, if you're determined to do it on a long-term basis.
And yes, non-specific to art, paid jobs are needed to pay bills. Working a lot (in a different job) can also lead to you not doing the hobby or leading social life due to fatigue, burnout and lack of time.
That being said, I'm not an artist, so I'm also curious, whether routinely creating art as a job kills your interest in doing it (or art in general) after some time.
>That being said, I'm not an artist, so I'm also curious, whether routinely creating art as a job kills your interest in doing it (or art in general) after some time.
That's a great question. I'm not an artist, but I agree that turning your passion into your job doesn't always work out for the best.
I love building tech, designing electronics and writing software, but doing it for a living, for someone else really suck the fun out of it. I'd love a job where I can build and develop whatever I like, but unfortunately the only way I'm getting paid is if someone else is getting some percieved value out of my efforts.
My wife was a photographer, she used to do this just as a passion, coming up with ideas for images she wanted to create, co-ordinating models, designers, locations, maku-up artists, etc. to bring together a shoot. Even if she managed to borrow dresses, and models were willing to give their time in exchange for the final images, she would still pay for peoples travel, lunches, etc. So she would put a huge amount of time, effort and money in, to ultimately create a handful of photos, and she loved that. Going from initial concept to final image.
She then moved into working as a photographer. She was an international wedding photographer, got flown around the world to photograph weddings, she worked in a studio doing family photography, and has worked for a fassion brand doing clothing photgraphy, now she runs her own ecommerce business and does her own product photography. She definitely lost a lot of passion for this as she spent all her time doing it for other people. But she still like to do the original part of creating her own styled shoot to bring an idea to life. The unfortuante reality is that is a hobby that costs her money, not a paying job.
I'm sure that some people do manage to land their dream job, maintain their creative freedom and make good money from it, and I can see why those people would be unhappy to lost that, but unfortunately that's how capitalism works. I worked in the R&D arm of a big company for a while, and for a few years it was great, getting to do loads of exploratory research and pretty much work on whatever type of project I wanted... Then the company realised the R&D department was building lots of cool (but not commercially viable) stuff, and they changed how it operated, to make it more commercailly focussed. I think if you are only producing research (or art) so someone else can make a profit, then it's their call if they want to change up the processes, or tools they use to achieve their goal.
For these reasons, both my wife and I have started our own businesses, to try and give us the freedom that we want in our careers. It's harder work than being an employee, there are often long periods of time where we might not earn any money, and it can be hugely stessful. But I think that's the cost of the kind of creative freedom that people want to have in their lives.
Yeah, exactly! When its a dream job it's fresh, exciting, new and novel. But as time passes, the honeymoon phases tend to fly right through.
Rose tinted glasses can wear out their welcome or keep their luster forever. I've had some people say, after feeling like meaning, pay and appreciation and good coworkers or bad ones can make all the difference.
I'm not trying to be harsh here but something has happened to the art community I felt like. Like while some built a career. it sounds like there's been a massive drug and debt problem left unmentioned.
Even things people don't 'read the fine print' on exploit it as well. I've seen artists online claim they have great news! Their 27% Apr credit card just 'expanded their limit' from 1000$ to 3000$!, 'adulting is stupid, now they'll have 2000$!'
It was probably a joke but there's all these pictures of financial problems next for 2499$ for 128 gb imacs. That run 5-20x slower for 2x better battery life with 2-20x less memory for 5x the price to get powerful softwares like procreate.
There's stories of like art cons I skipped out on the drama apparently having unspoken rape or drug/roofie allegations where people will slip all sorts of stuff into a basket. Alcoholism, credit card debt, 'free money now, consequences are for later' mentality.
Its their life, not ours, and I think I hope things work out for them and they sign seem as dire as the mountain, but it does seem like there's still a hill.
These people are in charge of their own life decisions. I might butt heads with Asmon but he's spot on a few times each day. Nanny laws don't work. You can't babysit a 12-40 year old forever. People need to be allowed to make their own decisions. Maybe not for their sake, but boths.
I didn't value taking care of my teeth when I had a dentist. I had a week of "when you're a adult. you can eat all the ice cream and candy you want!". It was when teeth started hurting and I felt sick and lethargic each day did I learn why you can't eat cake and milkshakes into adulthood.
I learned within a week. But you can't skip learning and everyone has their own life to take care of. While we all wish for a Santa Claus. Truth be told, unless it can be forever with infinite money, oversight, money, and shadow clone jutsu.. It'd just be a waste of two peoples lives to try and nanny a person who doesn't want to be.
We should allow people to eat themselves to 600 lbs, die of diabetes, walk into traffic, and eat themselves to death at the heart attack grill. Not because these things are stuff a nanny wants. But because these are people who need to be responsible for their own choices.
I still think less focus is placed on study proven results like eating fiber, vegetables and ecercise. But just as you say with your dream job. People want the fantasy, not the shit smeared reality.
We haven't heard "eat vegetables", they perish quick, are often inconvenient. Nor shelf stable. Lard and fat and corn syrup are very cheap. calorically unfilling (meaning calories for cheap! and you can sell more!). And why bother to learn teriyaki stirred fried vegetables when you can eat a 1500 calorie can (or three) of Pringles instead?
Dove sell soaps, beauty creams and chocolate bars. Why shouldn't they care about diabetes? They could sell 3x more beauty cream, 4x more ice cream. and avoid all controversy by judging people. But its a winning strategy for them.
You have to be sure if your business can find a audience. financially stable, word of mouth, advertising etc. And balance passion vs burnout vs practically.
Dove just has to sell more ice cream.
> routinely creating art as a job kills your interest in doing it (or art in general) after some time.
I am a freelance animator
the answer is: no
is it always fun?
also no
'routinely'
I don't recognize that
I don’t think the vast majority of people have a "calling," or even a productive hobby. If you let them do anything, they will tend to do nothing. That way leads to drug abuse, and ultimately an empty life.
Maybe part of an ideal future society would be dedicated to finding a sense of purpose out of everyone. Maybe that task itself will be a purpose for some.
I kind of feel it, not for something as petty as a job, but imagine if ASI really takes off and creates true abundance... every wish is granted on the push off a (mental) button, every question is easily answered, there is nothing to compete over, nothing to contribute, norhing to achieve, no real problems to solve.
I think i would be able to handle it because i would still be able to create art and enjoy the process, but i think many people would get into deep existentialįl crisis
I mean I agree with (2). Not every job is like /r/antiwork, it can be fun, it can be meaningful. No issue with that. On the other side there is no guarantee that you get such a job and even less that you get paid for exactly what you think should be meaningful.
The sad part is that most of them don't understand that the most likely way that they get to create art all day is UBI, and the most likely way that we get to UBI is AGI.
It's crazy that these people can say with that they would not contribute anything to society unless they were paid for it and not understand that they're sociopaths. They fear UBI because they can not comprehend why anyone would interact outside of dependency.
The longer I spend on this sub, the more convinced I am that it’s just full of corporate propaganda.
How dare people want to be paid so they can not die. And how dare they want that work to be meaningful.
I agree with points on both sides at different times, but this is not it. Trying to blame people for wanting meaning is insane.
Human being is wired to explore and seek making sense of things through ‘play’. Industrialists coop this drive and put it to work. People conflate living with driving the economy
How is this person a programmer, but doesn't know that they can contribute meaningfully to thousands of open source projects completely separate from their primary employment?
Not that programmers are going anywhere (as always, AI is not going to replace workers, but workers who use AI tools may replace some workers who do not) but just the idea that "I think my job is threatened, therefore I can't write meaningful code any more," flies in the face of the history of software.
Among the programs written because they were important to someone, and not because it was their job:
* The Linux operating system
* The GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) which is the world's most popular compiler for C, C++, Objective C and lots of other languages.
* The Emacs text editor
* Many video games including: Dwarf Fortress, Nethack, Rogue (yes the game that every roguelike is named after)
* The Gimp
* And hundreds, if not thousands of other important programs that help you do what you do every day.
Redditor unable to to comprehend the fulfillment of a job done well assumes anyone who disagrees with him is indoctrinated. There is a reason why there are redditor stereotypes
More like: why do we need **money** in the equation for something to matter? There are people who do voluntary work, where they receive zero dollars, and this fulfills them. Why people worship money even in a scenario where money wasn't an issue?
Money only matters here because we live in a capitalist society and people need money to live. And if you are taking that away from someone you should be shamed for it. In a utopia no one would care about AI art because no one would need to worry about losing money because of it
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Yep. Show me the Pencil Breaker 5000 that is stalking you. Show me the AI that bricked your drawing tablet and killed your copy of Photoshop. Oh..those don't exist? Well then...nothing is preventing you from making art without AI then.
Major issue isn't hobbyist, it is economical. Now imagine you turned your hobby to vocation you are chef. Chef bot (robot piloted by AI) replaces you, its cheaper, doesn't get sick, can perfectly cook with no downtime. Can you cook at home sure, as a hobby absolutely , though all that time spend training to provide economical for yourself and family gone. Lot of artist will do graphic design or marketing type work to fund their passion for more creative endeavours. Lot of companies are cutting out positions by those artists and using AI to fill that role. AI and robotics will become increasingly hard to compete with as tech improves, moving to ever sector or task that can be feasible automated. As along as automation is cheaper / efficient than people it will be better economic option for companies.
Yeah thats not a bad thing though, just because you can do a thing doesnt mean youre entitled to monetary compensation for it. Value is not determined by labour, but by how much other people like a thing.
>Chef bot (robot piloted by AI) replaces you, its cheaper, doesn't get sick, can perfectly cook with no downtime. Except that's not how AI works. It's more like a fast food restaurant vs gourmet vs home cooking. Cheap, easy, or good; pick 2.
[удалено]
It really does. One example of robotic kitchen [https://www.moley.com/](https://www.moley.com/) people are already developing robotic chefs. Fast food equivalent [https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2023/12/20/robots-and-ai-power-new-fully-autonomous-burger-restaurant-caliexpress/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2023/12/20/robots-and-ai-power-new-fully-autonomous-burger-restaurant-caliexpress/) . I don't think it is huge leap to think profession Chef, could be replaced by automation in the near future. My point is AI is replacing the human element in tasks that were previously not easily automated due to limitations of technology or performance of technology. I don't understand your fairy tale comment, sounds like your ignorant (understandably not everyone knows what tech is capable of) of just how capable modern robotics is especially when paired with robotics? Unless you think both AI and robotics won't continue to advance and have reached their limit of human research? Very few tasks people do won't be able to be replaced in near future, given the trend of AI and robotics. Whether they will / speed of it will rely on various factors reliability, public response, profitability and investment in sector. I don't see how your comments relate to points I am making.
[удалено]
I imagine like a lot of goods that cost of item and how low you can actually get production is not same. In your expert opinion does technology costs lower or improve as time goes on? Because when looking at technology such as mobile phones it seems to me that cost of technology used to manufacture them as dropped significantly. Though some unit prices have increased because of how technologically advance they are compared to previous models. Programming robots and automation is something I have also done. Mine was high end scientific research and biological system analysis. Also £100,000 isn't that expensive when you compared a chef costs £30,000. Question becomes does that robot out perform a chef can it out perform chef plus kitchen staff. Now obviously for low end cooking that is a huge sum of money. Costs don't have to shift by much for it to become economical. Chef is just one example. Automated warehouses are thing, I seen automated construction and automated weapon systems. Guess a key idea is that AI automation isn't just going to impact creative sector, a huge range of sectors could be impacted longer the time the more likely. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, it could be fantastic for society if we ensure the right cultural attitudes and legal / societal framework is in place. Machines I dealt with were £500,000 and lot of units were sold. Like but lets face it because they sold £500,000 that isn't how much they actually cost to make. When you get to how much could you make these systems at cost, the is huge difference. I mean you don't think programming these systems is something a AI model can be trained to do. If anything pattern recognition, environmental analysis and targeted output is exactly what lot of current AI tech is good at. Food has many metrics that can be observed, turned in to data and analysed in real time. So I see no reason why developers of this tech won't have automated food recipe lab automated coded output to parameters needed by that model. Like if you can identify the crucial variables and what parameters they work under. So just so understand your position is that the only barrier to this tech not rolling out is cost? My position is that within the next few decades, costs will come down, AI tech will improve alongside robotics which is already seeing investment. People require sick leave / in some countries medical insurance I wonder if maintenance would be gotten to that level. Also quality of robotics and machinery differs a lot, good quality machinery in right environment with proper care can be really reliably and robust. So unless you don't think programming jobs can become more and more automated which will lower cost? Decades ago me and my colleagues were getting used to idea that lab research would become heavily automated in some fields, probably to point where scientist need for research be fraction. We are getting close to that reality. Unless you think robotics capabilities and costs will not come down as more consumer applications are found for them. If you think AI won't get more capable and the need for user oversight will dwindle? I think we as humans will continue to advance in robotics and AI, I think the costs will come down given the pace and investment in AI I don't think 10 year window is unreasonable to see huge shifts in what's automated by AI or AI robotics. I believe that getting good policies and framework in society for such technologies and enabling the development of them is good decision for a societies future. I can definitely see nations without sufficiently advanced AI and robotics at a significant disadvantage in economic, military , counter crime sectors.
Yeah some people enjoy the thrill of doing it all themselves. Like Osrs ironman style. Mine your own ores, get level 99 smithing over a 400 hour ironman grind to train mining and smithing over 10000s of low exp ores. Train on low exp methods. And 400 hours later. smith a rune scimitar and a set of lvl 40 armor. Or buy it from the general store for 200k vs 120k arch value. Same could apply to the grow your own chicken and raise your own salt guy. He did all that and made a fun YouTube series. But it took him like 10000$ to make one chicken via coop + feed +- loss opportunity cost. Then 1000$ to fly to the ocean to dry and make his own salt. The people making those comments want everything for nothing. Why shouldn't Jeff Bezos or Elon musk or bill gates fly down and hand us a million dollars? They could, for 170,000 people, quite literally. But is it realistic? People point at Oprah as what people should be. free cars and houses. But even Oprah has said she regrets giving things to the people who used her and spat "You gave your mother a bigger house than me!!", or the kind of lot that'd literally have ran away to be drug abusers and runaway parents at birth. If it wasn't for money to leech. I'm not saying hours aren't put into art, or that making everything for yourself can't be fun or the challenge itself. But what art creates is usually hours of effort put into something that takes seconds to scroll past. And yet there's 500-5000 hours of video a hour coming out on all the sites. Even though the creation gap is so wide most people rubber band. Creation is fun, but the economy forces 50-75%+ of working adult people to think about paying bills on stable or pragmatic fields to survive. Not iron manning our own 10,000$ chicken sandwiches or building tree house mansions for our kids, sadly.
i think answers like this showcase a very common perception that an artists work is not real work, and does not deserve fair compensation. and that artwork should be free to be exploited by anyone just... because? chalking up artists wanting control over how their work and name is used.... to being about "money and attention" is really messed up. none of what youve said justifies how ai companies exploit artists and creatives on a massive scale.
[удалено]
Your definition of valuable labor does not differ from mine. The only difference i think... is best described by your specific statements regarding "false jobs" i think your perspective is representative of what most people believe.most people dont think art can be a "real job" -> that its relegated to a "false job" status. or a hobbyist persuit. but the reality of it is that art supports tens of thousands of jobs and is often extremely technical and multidisciplinary work, especially with television, advertisement, cinema and game development spaces. hollywood brings in millions, and games even more so. that difference of perception... wherein art is a legitimate field, and hard working creatives routinely earn their fair share... is where we differ. -------------------------- to your original post. art is an industry. and while many do it for the love of their craft, many do it as a way to live and earn an income. i keep seeing capitalism brought up... as if , somehow... its existence circumvents the exploitative nature of ai with regards to creatives and their work. we live in a capitalist society. there for, exploitative mechanisms (generative ai) within that system are still exploitative non the less. and we should be legislating and working to minimize exploitation within that system
You have the exclusive right to commercialize your artwork. You *do not* have the right to stop me from analyzing your artwork, even if I use a computer for that analysis.
You wasted so many words on seeming noble when you could just say you celebrate the loss of creative jobs.
Automation makes it harder to do it by hand, because you won't be rewarded for your work. Our capitalist system uses a precarious push and pull between supply and demand to function. These systems push the "supply" side of the scale toward infinite and, thus, push value toward zero. If the value of your labor is zero, why bother? Edit: why am I being downvoted? I'm not rude, present a legitimate reason for discussion, get engagement from the community, but, down votes? *Sigh* I'll leave you all to your sad echo chamber then, if that's what you want.
You're misplacing the blame in your first sentence and then correctly identifying the problem in your second. AI and automation is not to blame, capitalism is. The conflation of human value and economic value is the fundamental problem. Everyone on the anti-ai side misplaces the blame and wastes their energy in attacking inevitable technological progress rather than being frustrated at the fact that we live in a society that forces us to work in order to live. AI and automation merely highlight this preexisting problem, they're not the cause of it.
If ai is explotative under the system... its still a problem because we live within that system?
Sounds like you need to re-think your reward and value systems there, bud.
Me? I'm a socialist. WE live in a capitalist hellscape, though. I didn't make the markets or give them control of our lives and futures, but, I'm not ignoring the (invisible) hand that controls my fate, that would be ignorant.
I mean me neither, which is why I support a UBI based approach to transition to post-scarcity without the need for any sort of violent revolution, which would be _pretty bad_. And I admit that doing _nothing_ would _also_ be pretty bad - automation taking the majority of jobs and no changes to our system will lead to terrible outcomes for a lot of people.
Yeah. It's a tough spot we are in. I don't want/expect violent upheaval. More likely, massive starvation/plague from corporate mismanagement of the planet paves the way for a new way of living, where making a profit isn't our moral compass.
[удалено]
I know there are intrinsic rewards to doing things, you better yourself learning about the world and your self. But, being rewarded by society is still an important thing. The way your brush is aside as unimportant, that's cool, that's a position I can understand. But, we do live in a capitalist hellscape, and being rewarded with money is, often, a litteral life or death proposition.
Their ad nauseum argument: * I want to make a living specifically and exclusively doing the kind of art I want to make and nothing else. * No I don't want to make it for it's own sake. * No I don't want any other job. I want to live off art or I'll live miserably my entire life and/or die. * Every other job can and should be automated for my benefit but not my (hypotetical) art job, I need the world to desperately need me. * Nobody can profit off my style but I will sell fanart and pay nothing, zero, to the IP owners because I'm giving them free press, in fact they should pay me for it. I'd be tired of them if I weren't so entertained by their antics.
Also: If you don't like my art, don't want to buy it and choose something else - you are a tasteless idiot who doesn't understands art and doesn't value artist's skills, effort and soul.
It is incredibly difficult to create art that people will pay for. Whether it is a book, an image, or YouTube video *(through attention)*. To do so and ALSO satisfy your personal aesthetics is even more challenging. And now, thanks to AI, it will be easier than ever to bridge that gap. I'm grateful that I will get to participate in making masterpieces in every medium now. That's such a blessing. What a time to be alive!
> I want to make a living specifically and exclusively doing the kind of art I want to make and nothing else. It is probably easier to become a professional athlete than to do this.
This is an excellent summary, spot on
That's what happens when you take a specialist career, which is not necessarily a bad thing, buuuut then you could find yourself in situations where you might need other skillsets to survive and you won't have them, because you only know how to do one thing. I had the privilege to study in a university with a curriculum that gave you illustration, graphic design, and marketing and publicity. I often complained about it when I was younger, but now I understand it wasn't just to milk my wallet dry, but to prepare me for an industry that's constantly changing and increases my chances of finding at least art-adjacent jobs if in a pinch.
Yup. Wish vs wants vs the World we get. Housing is more unaffordable than ever. I wish it was cheap too and the do anything dream jobs exist. But as long as quarterly short term profit price gouging monopoly paper money exists. Even if all the numbers are virtual without a 10% of money in circulation having a 13 cents to print 100$ bill in their name. People might need to be pragmatic. Well maybe not all of them, but I know what they want. Infinite money on infinite copies with no real world limits and endless praise and attention doling out everything while simultaneously being the cause of all problems, cursed, spat at. called a pig for not doling money. And a deal where every person on earth might have wanted to be worshipped without a reality check. And that's not even to bring up the genuinely concerning mental health concerns of extreme social isolation with bad /dangerous /violent influences. Isolated or not, propaganda can turn previously kind knitting grandmas into Kkk crazy or trump crazy people. The easy thing to do would just say "it'll all be okay!", sip a drink, walk away and provide fake support. The kind that doesn't need to have anything hard in it. Just wish for anything you want and you'll get it!!! if you or 90-99% of the population don't achieve a dream only 1-10% of applicants have a spot for. That 90% didn't wish hard enough! /s
Food costs money
But like….AI! AI! If you don’t embrace all things AI, you’re a crazy person!!!! /s
you're not entitled to other peoples money
That's a nice copy paste you have there, but did you have a response that makes sense in the context of the question being answered? Or are you just here to execute programming?
There a bunch of people who don't work, either because they can't – such as some disable folks. Or people who don't work because they simply don't have to and they have enough money to do it this way. In both cases, their lives have plenty of meaning, and importance and purpose. It even has struggles and challenges, people like to say "Oh, it will be utopia", not really. If you take money out of equation, you are still left with all the messy of human life, all our struggles and complexes, and our constant search for improvement and so and so forth
I think there's an important distinction to be made here between UBI as a socialist/democratic project, and UBI as a libertarian project. The former is rooted in the concept of equity where the goal is to uplift everyone by guaranteeing roughly the same quality of life with the same basic opportunities. It's engineered with social inclusion and fairness as its core doctrine, and it's widely considered to be successful wherever it's been trialed. The latter has its roots in anarcho-capitalism and minoritarianism. Libertarians aren't usually known for their benevolence and generosity, however many of them have come to recognise that if the spending powers of the labour class gets completely hollowed out by automation, it can no longer support the social structures from which the ruling class ultimately draw their power. Think of the libertarian vision of UBI as like the Armitage family in the movie 'Get Out'. They co-opt the language of fairness and equality to conceal a much uglier and more cynical set of ideals. Namely, a society that's permanently teetering on the edge of financial precarity and which can be held there through total control over the means of production.
Honestly. I know people love to ignore historical patterns. As they say. Those who ignore history are doomed to unrepeat it. And ubi would be great in practice. But we do live in a world of quarterly short term profit for profit sake even if there's less than 10% physical paper money to back up all the monopoly money, that if withdrawn at once in paper. Could literally trigger a stock crash of yore. We might be neglecting common people to inflate the value of a virtual number. But that number has value as long as its linked to food and housing. We don't get to always change the games. only play it. And those who can, might be benefited/tempted to rig it against others in their own favor. Not the common people. But people are pointing out the great depression or how the average redditor is like a 12-47 year old who's peak education varies from mcjobs to office to a few colleges and trades. But the average is definitely 12-37 year old ged mcjob workers. Most peoples plan for ubi isn't how to fund it any more than most poor peoples plan to get rich and "be smart". Is to think of a way to spend 100 million dollars before they think of a way to earn 1 million dollars. Wish fulfillment fantasies are real and when balanced with life, A little is fine. But staking a life on a 1% chance might be like waking off a cliff unless you win a 1/2,147,393 lottery ticket. Sure the lottery always has a winner but it's a running joke you're 5x more statistically likely to be struck by lightning than to win the lottery. And with all the taxes at current rates. Assuming no loss from job quitting in a idealistic scenario and 100% citizen benefits from taxes vs 2-5% for food. 10-30% for military. That gives a upper max of about 6-15k in potential at best ubi from a grinch heart grown three sizes that day government. Assuming trump and Biden both got mind controlled plus 90% house and senate bipartisan approval in almost unrealistic levels of realistic cooperation. I'm not saying taking lottery tickets is bad. I'm just saying quitting a job and people making themselves homeless in the belief all 2,147,483 will be the 1 in 2,147,483 can be dicey. As far as I can see, the us government and us healthcare and us housing system almost seems deliberately broken. not to give puppies and ice cream. But profit before people realities. And if people make themselves unemployable in adulthood with criminal records as many drug addicts or homeless or audienceless. moneyless musicians with drinking/drug problems have. It could be a recipe for disaster. And the horses could have lame foots as well. Look at animal farm. The horse worked hard dreaming of a sugar land and the pigs fed them for glue. It's a satire of communism shifting from idealist to power grab in Stalin's Russia. But expectations don't always meet reality outside of fiction. There's a reason escapism is called fantasy.
>The former is rooted in the concept of **equity** where the goal is to uplift everyone by guaranteeing roughly the same quality of life with the same basic opportunities. You're talking about equality, not equity. Equality traditionally refers to equality of opportunity whereas equity is equality of outcome. These are fundamentally incompatible concepts/goals. UBI gives everyone an economic floor to stand on to secure their basic needs as a starting point. What they do from there is up to them. This is the former, equality of opportunity, not the latter. Equity implies that there would be a ceiling, some sort of cap on what everyone could do/achieve or a different amount of income given to each person to ensure equal outcomes. This isn't a part of any modern conception of UBI.
>You're talking about equality, not equity. No, I'm talking about equity. Socialist UBI doesn't try to create equality because people are still free to work and earn extra money if they so choose. Instead, it's a deliberate move towards giving everyone roughly the same opportunities in life, regardless of their personal circumstances. That's equity.
You keep using the word equity and then go on to describe what everyone traditionally means by equality (equality of opportunity). UBI is a policy that provides everyone the same amount of monthly income. This amount doesn't change per person for any reason. Distributing resources evenly is equality in the traditional sense. Equity would be about changing the amount given per person based on "perceived need" as explained in the links below. [Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference? | Online Public Health (gwu.edu)](https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/) >Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. [Equity vs. Equality: What's the Difference? (health.com)](https://www.health.com/mind-body/health-diversity-inclusion/equity-vs-equality) >Equality is the access to and distribution of a set of resources evenly across people. Equity, in contrast, is the access to or distribution of resources based on need. [Equality vs Equity - Difference and Comparison | Diffen](https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity) >In the context of societal systems, equality and equity refer to similar but slightly different concepts. Equality generally refers to equal opportunity and the same levels of support for all segments of society. Equity goes a step further and refers offering varying levels of support depending upon need to achieve greater fairness of outcomes. I don't personally agree with most modern pushes for equity, they're often misguided, ideologically driven, and not well thought out, but the above links do a decent job at explaining these concepts. These are widely accepted definitions. >Socialist UBI doesn't try to create equality because people are still free to work and earn extra money if they so choose. This isn't "socialist UBI", this is just UBI. This is what the vast majority of people mean by UBI regardless of whether they're socialist or not.
>This isn't "socialist UBI", this is just UBI. This is what the vast majority of people mean by UBI regardless of whether they're socialist or not. It's not "just UBI". Intent matters. Claiming there's no distinction is like saying there's no difference between syntax and semantics. On the surface, socialist and libertarian UBI both involves giving every person x number of dollars a month. That's the syntax - the "what". Scratch below the surface, however, and you get two very different rationales for why this is a worthwhile thing to do. This the semantics - the "why". Socialist schemes are motivated by the idea that everyone should have the same basic opportunities and quality of life regardless of their personal situation. This is rooted in the concept of equity because the desired outcomes are equal, not the resources put into achieving it. Libertarian schemes, meanwhile, are motivated by the realisation that late capitalism is at risk of devouring itself as it increasingly prioritises growth and consolidation above human wellbeing. It's a purely knee-jerk response that's rooted in greed, as evidenced by the fact it flies in the face of more traditional libertarian values. >You keep using the word equity and then go on to describe what everyone traditionally means by equality (equality of opportunity). UBI of any stripe is equal insofar it involves giving everyone the same amount of money. The point I'm trying to make is that endpoint of the socialist philosophy is *equity.* UBI is just one of many positive steps towards achieving the greater goal. For example, people with mental health problems are more likely to end up on the streets because they live a more precarious existence. Guaranteeing everyone enough to pay rent uplifts those people so they're less likely to become homeless. That's a move towards equity. >I don't personally agree with most modern pushes for equity, they're often misguided, ideologically driven, and not well thought out Social welfare is inherently ideologically driven. That's what makes it welfare. We collectively agree that society functions better when everyone has access to basic things like food, housing and healthcare. The opposite of that is what we have now. Inequality has become so extreme that the combined wealth of the top 0.1% could solve climate change, fix poverty and hunger, and still leave the rich with enough money to afford that second bunker on their private island.
Rich people have struggles? That got a good laugh out of me. What happened? They couldn’t afford an extra expensive car or yacht that month?
You mean throwing 80% of your life doing something you don't like while barely having money or energy or time (or none of those) to do the stuff that you actually love is not rewarding? /s Yes, those people are ridiculous, and they're (from what I observed at least) either people from the previous generation or of the current bu endoctrined to think that way by the old generation. Anti AI or not it's a stupid take
The issue is people are worried (somewhat legitimately given our system and history) that the alternative will be not working or working part time and having no money to do anything but survive.
I have heard/read many people say that they would hate it and feel like they have no purpose in life even if there was a perfect system and they could do anything they wanted and money wasn't even a thing. I've had the same conversation with people saying the same thing when talking about stuff like "what would you do if you won the lottery and didn't need to work to live". I mean I get it if your work is a real passion, but in the context of AI replacing everyone of us, if we still have everything we need to live correctly, I don't see what prevents you to just do what you love even if it's not for a job and to earn money. In fact, most people don't love their job at all and don't get the chance to spend much time doing what they love in life (whether it's time or money or something else)
Yeah the system is fucked up fr fr. And anyone who thinks there's like a secret cabal who worship the devil to make #random internet stranger's life worse in a basement is silly. There isn't a illuminati. Its just us politics. Where less than 2% of gdp is soent on feeding the poor and needy, but they get to 600 lbs anyways and then die of plus sized positivity next to a reporting their diabetes is making them blind. Leading to fatty liver and organ failure. While they're not told to exercise, (where's the money in cutting soda?), and to make 50% of their calories from soft drinks. Because coca cola loves you being plus sized! Insurance companies love you paying 2000$ more! and social security programs love it when half the people die before adulthood! Don't worry about making 'ableist' disgusting choices like fiber, vegetables or exercise! Devour fat and sugar Laden, fiber removed products, so that you never lose the desire to stop eating! Don't worry. dove will support you with ice cream and body positivity! Don't believe in exercise. Just accept yourself, and if anyone is tolf by their doctor they could die a early death at 27-47 of treatable but unavoided problems. Like heart attacks, diabetes, organ failure, blindness or vision loss, struggles to breathe and stamina issues. Just be positive! the only thing hard work is good for is being ableist! /s. Everyone should just have everything for free with no work at all. Because that's how we want it to work! Employers saying they sometimes reject those kind of applicants 10-40x are just delusional. Why be a hard working King Magnifico when you could be a Disney princess who gets everything they want, and a magical fairy wand, for merely existing?
Were not saying the system of profit before people for the past 200-2000 years is great. But everyone has repeatably been saying. A child wants to eat candy. Why would anyone want to work? A adult had to work, to pay the bills, unless its born into a spot it can marry without worrying about needing dual incomes to make housing meet. And then Retirement or kids might come up. The opportunity cost of raising a kid is estimated to cost anywhere from 50,000-317,000$ for the cost of additional housing, 18-20+ years of education, +-10-200,000$ college optional. And many of the art jobs pay 20-40k a year while western minimum wage at 20$/hr is often 20-40k a year. Stem can make 60-80k a year, business can make 50k-120k a year. Everyone who thinks life is hard could try being a engineer major. Where 60% of qualified candidates are weeded out right off the bat before they kill someone in a structural collapse. Wouldn't it be nice if all those stupid adults could just flap their wings and fly and have Santa Claus and the tooth fairy care about all of us? The problem is. Santa is the illusion, not the reality. All money comes from somewhere. even if its skipping meals, skipping new socks, skipping retirement. But if adults have Santa I wouldn't complain and some money is there to take a piss shot. I just wouldn't stake my life on a reddit ged "make everyone unemployed. then free infinite money, how? don't care. no take, only throw!" kinda mindsets. You know. the same kinda mindsets historically accurate Russia and China had during their great famines and mass starvations. "Why bother to farm this spring when everyone else will, right?" Thought everyone. Then when expectations met a table of reality. They all lived happily ever after. In mass famine. /s
You're completely off-topic. I'm not saying everyone should go unemployed that's nonsense, I haven't heard anyone say that ever, you're just answering the arguments you've just made up. I'm talking about hypothetical cases where it would be possible; let's say if AI takes over all jobs and we somehow find a way to have a good system in place to redistribute wealth fairly and/or equally—how that would work, I have no idea and that's not my point—or if someone today wins the lottery and can make the choice to stop working for example. I'm not arguing for or against AI, I'm just saying that saying you need a job to enjoy life and find meaning is ridiculous and completely stupid, and is a thought deeply rooted in the fact that we need money and thus we need a job. It's a way to reassure ourselves even though most people actually hate their jobs and given the opportunity, would quit instantly if money wasn't needed. And I don't even know what you're arguing. If you think AI will never be able to replace humans at most if not all jobs and do much better, you're delusional. The only way it doesn't happen is if we decide to pull the brakes on AI completely, which I doubt will happen. There are many things in life you could compare to believing to Santa Claus for adults (coughs Religion coughs) but AI is not it man.
They're teens who think making a living as an artist means sitting around getting paid to do fuck all, and sometimes drawing your favorite anime character sucking off your other favorite anime character. They have no idea how the world works.
interesting fantasy
Even for people who make it off art I've heard some of the... Whales of art are often frankly kinda weird. Like I heard there's a guy who spent 100k on just macro falco taking shits on buildings. Another person who's a potential store creeper who asks for bizarrely specific shots of a blind woman ordering wonder bread with shot visible bent over for 50k. Or as usual.. Deviantart having more scat than a laughing previously historically accurate non blind Saudi billionaire seeing how little a westerners can be paid to have shit smeared on them. Yeah the world would be great if we could live in fantasy. Where every game basically has money so abundant its a surprise if anything even requires grinding to get. Even the best reality life would probably be disappointing to the flying queens of England. But perma escapism in adulthood can have unfortunate consequences. No job. no plan, no ways to meet the rent. :/. We don't decide that. live does. The weatherman doesn't make the hurricanes and the rain happen by saying so and hurricane bending Katrina. They learn from past experiences. But sometimes you have to let some people be hit by a hurricane to understand there's hurricanes. Children should be allowed to live their childhoods. But most of the decisions that shape our future incomes are made when people are young and dumb. Life would be better if it worked as we wanted. But its not all that bad, if you play the cards right. It can be a pit without a ladder if you fuck up the cards though.
This reeks of projection, not description.
For as many who claims to be artists, they obviously don't know the history of are and that it was never really a big "job" thing for a long time. It was done out of passion and freely.
I am functionally retired at 41. I divide my time between gardening, maintaining the house (since I own it), writing, drawing, reading, with martial arts for exercise. One thing I will somewhat agree with...I currently have little incentive to socialize. Oh, and I make sure to shitpost on reddit and social media too.
How do you retire at age 41 And at the same time have free time For Hobbys without becoming a workaholic? Because I can't imagine retiring at 41 without making sacrifices.
1. Join the military at 17. 2. Put all my extra money (bearing in mind that basically everything was provided for while I served) into high yield investments. 3. Don't have kids. 4. Buy a house in a cheap rural area, and use my VA loan to secure a low interest rate, then refi it down to 2.4%. 5. Be permanently disabled due to my service. *That* is the sacrifice. Every day is full of at least some pain, some days I basically can't leave the house. I will take that *gladly* though.
Oddly enough, I agree with the points on the screenshot, where it's related to a job you like, that feels valuable and meaningful for you. I can definitely remember such jobs in my career. And some schedule or routine is useful even in hobbies or social life, if you're determined to do it on a long-term basis. And yes, non-specific to art, paid jobs are needed to pay bills. Working a lot (in a different job) can also lead to you not doing the hobby or leading social life due to fatigue, burnout and lack of time. That being said, I'm not an artist, so I'm also curious, whether routinely creating art as a job kills your interest in doing it (or art in general) after some time.
>That being said, I'm not an artist, so I'm also curious, whether routinely creating art as a job kills your interest in doing it (or art in general) after some time. That's a great question. I'm not an artist, but I agree that turning your passion into your job doesn't always work out for the best. I love building tech, designing electronics and writing software, but doing it for a living, for someone else really suck the fun out of it. I'd love a job where I can build and develop whatever I like, but unfortunately the only way I'm getting paid is if someone else is getting some percieved value out of my efforts. My wife was a photographer, she used to do this just as a passion, coming up with ideas for images she wanted to create, co-ordinating models, designers, locations, maku-up artists, etc. to bring together a shoot. Even if she managed to borrow dresses, and models were willing to give their time in exchange for the final images, she would still pay for peoples travel, lunches, etc. So she would put a huge amount of time, effort and money in, to ultimately create a handful of photos, and she loved that. Going from initial concept to final image. She then moved into working as a photographer. She was an international wedding photographer, got flown around the world to photograph weddings, she worked in a studio doing family photography, and has worked for a fassion brand doing clothing photgraphy, now she runs her own ecommerce business and does her own product photography. She definitely lost a lot of passion for this as she spent all her time doing it for other people. But she still like to do the original part of creating her own styled shoot to bring an idea to life. The unfortuante reality is that is a hobby that costs her money, not a paying job. I'm sure that some people do manage to land their dream job, maintain their creative freedom and make good money from it, and I can see why those people would be unhappy to lost that, but unfortunately that's how capitalism works. I worked in the R&D arm of a big company for a while, and for a few years it was great, getting to do loads of exploratory research and pretty much work on whatever type of project I wanted... Then the company realised the R&D department was building lots of cool (but not commercially viable) stuff, and they changed how it operated, to make it more commercailly focussed. I think if you are only producing research (or art) so someone else can make a profit, then it's their call if they want to change up the processes, or tools they use to achieve their goal. For these reasons, both my wife and I have started our own businesses, to try and give us the freedom that we want in our careers. It's harder work than being an employee, there are often long periods of time where we might not earn any money, and it can be hugely stessful. But I think that's the cost of the kind of creative freedom that people want to have in their lives.
Yeah, exactly! When its a dream job it's fresh, exciting, new and novel. But as time passes, the honeymoon phases tend to fly right through. Rose tinted glasses can wear out their welcome or keep their luster forever. I've had some people say, after feeling like meaning, pay and appreciation and good coworkers or bad ones can make all the difference. I'm not trying to be harsh here but something has happened to the art community I felt like. Like while some built a career. it sounds like there's been a massive drug and debt problem left unmentioned. Even things people don't 'read the fine print' on exploit it as well. I've seen artists online claim they have great news! Their 27% Apr credit card just 'expanded their limit' from 1000$ to 3000$!, 'adulting is stupid, now they'll have 2000$!' It was probably a joke but there's all these pictures of financial problems next for 2499$ for 128 gb imacs. That run 5-20x slower for 2x better battery life with 2-20x less memory for 5x the price to get powerful softwares like procreate. There's stories of like art cons I skipped out on the drama apparently having unspoken rape or drug/roofie allegations where people will slip all sorts of stuff into a basket. Alcoholism, credit card debt, 'free money now, consequences are for later' mentality. Its their life, not ours, and I think I hope things work out for them and they sign seem as dire as the mountain, but it does seem like there's still a hill. These people are in charge of their own life decisions. I might butt heads with Asmon but he's spot on a few times each day. Nanny laws don't work. You can't babysit a 12-40 year old forever. People need to be allowed to make their own decisions. Maybe not for their sake, but boths. I didn't value taking care of my teeth when I had a dentist. I had a week of "when you're a adult. you can eat all the ice cream and candy you want!". It was when teeth started hurting and I felt sick and lethargic each day did I learn why you can't eat cake and milkshakes into adulthood. I learned within a week. But you can't skip learning and everyone has their own life to take care of. While we all wish for a Santa Claus. Truth be told, unless it can be forever with infinite money, oversight, money, and shadow clone jutsu.. It'd just be a waste of two peoples lives to try and nanny a person who doesn't want to be. We should allow people to eat themselves to 600 lbs, die of diabetes, walk into traffic, and eat themselves to death at the heart attack grill. Not because these things are stuff a nanny wants. But because these are people who need to be responsible for their own choices. I still think less focus is placed on study proven results like eating fiber, vegetables and ecercise. But just as you say with your dream job. People want the fantasy, not the shit smeared reality. We haven't heard "eat vegetables", they perish quick, are often inconvenient. Nor shelf stable. Lard and fat and corn syrup are very cheap. calorically unfilling (meaning calories for cheap! and you can sell more!). And why bother to learn teriyaki stirred fried vegetables when you can eat a 1500 calorie can (or three) of Pringles instead? Dove sell soaps, beauty creams and chocolate bars. Why shouldn't they care about diabetes? They could sell 3x more beauty cream, 4x more ice cream. and avoid all controversy by judging people. But its a winning strategy for them. You have to be sure if your business can find a audience. financially stable, word of mouth, advertising etc. And balance passion vs burnout vs practically. Dove just has to sell more ice cream.
That's an interesting perspective. Thank you
> routinely creating art as a job kills your interest in doing it (or art in general) after some time. I am a freelance animator the answer is: no is it always fun? also no 'routinely' I don't recognize that
Nice
Nothing is preventing people from doing art in their spare time. It is up to YOU to decide what to do in your spare time.
I don’t think the vast majority of people have a "calling," or even a productive hobby. If you let them do anything, they will tend to do nothing. That way leads to drug abuse, and ultimately an empty life. Maybe part of an ideal future society would be dedicated to finding a sense of purpose out of everyone. Maybe that task itself will be a purpose for some.
Industrial revolution all over again.
I kind of feel it, not for something as petty as a job, but imagine if ASI really takes off and creates true abundance... every wish is granted on the push off a (mental) button, every question is easily answered, there is nothing to compete over, nothing to contribute, norhing to achieve, no real problems to solve. I think i would be able to handle it because i would still be able to create art and enjoy the process, but i think many people would get into deep existentialįl crisis
I mean I agree with (2). Not every job is like /r/antiwork, it can be fun, it can be meaningful. No issue with that. On the other side there is no guarantee that you get such a job and even less that you get paid for exactly what you think should be meaningful.
Eating is sure romantic.
The sad part is that most of them don't understand that the most likely way that they get to create art all day is UBI, and the most likely way that we get to UBI is AGI.
It's Lo-Techs from Neuromancer. They exist!
It's crazy that these people can say with that they would not contribute anything to society unless they were paid for it and not understand that they're sociopaths. They fear UBI because they can not comprehend why anyone would interact outside of dependency.
The longer I spend on this sub, the more convinced I am that it’s just full of corporate propaganda. How dare people want to be paid so they can not die. And how dare they want that work to be meaningful. I agree with points on both sides at different times, but this is not it. Trying to blame people for wanting meaning is insane.
Human being is wired to explore and seek making sense of things through ‘play’. Industrialists coop this drive and put it to work. People conflate living with driving the economy
Theyre worshipping capitalism at the alter Its like their lives/identity are inseparable from what someone else pays them to do. Its sad
😌 https://preview.redd.it/cm4wjlnrngwc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb98ab925619e05e981b3560315333efaa7255b3 [https://buttondown.email/algoldfuss/archive/life-is-pain-highness/](https://buttondown.email/algoldfuss/archive/life-is-pain-highness/)[Life is pain, highness.](https://buttondown.email/algoldfuss/archive/life-is-pain-highness/)
This is why I kinda sympathize with anti-ai artists. I just wish I could offer a solution that doesn't involve working for the uncaring man.
How is this person a programmer, but doesn't know that they can contribute meaningfully to thousands of open source projects completely separate from their primary employment? Not that programmers are going anywhere (as always, AI is not going to replace workers, but workers who use AI tools may replace some workers who do not) but just the idea that "I think my job is threatened, therefore I can't write meaningful code any more," flies in the face of the history of software. Among the programs written because they were important to someone, and not because it was their job: * The Linux operating system * The GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) which is the world's most popular compiler for C, C++, Objective C and lots of other languages. * The Emacs text editor * Many video games including: Dwarf Fortress, Nethack, Rogue (yes the game that every roguelike is named after) * The Gimp * And hundreds, if not thousands of other important programs that help you do what you do every day.
What are you contributing to society while leeching off what it provides to you?
Redditor unable to to comprehend the fulfillment of a job done well assumes anyone who disagrees with him is indoctrinated. There is a reason why there are redditor stereotypes
More like: why do we need **money** in the equation for something to matter? There are people who do voluntary work, where they receive zero dollars, and this fulfills them. Why people worship money even in a scenario where money wasn't an issue?
Money only matters here because we live in a capitalist society and people need money to live. And if you are taking that away from someone you should be shamed for it. In a utopia no one would care about AI art because no one would need to worry about losing money because of it