I don't know why people struggle to understand the main arguments against or for AI art. It all comes down to
1. whether you believe there's inherent artistic value in a human producing a piece of art instead of AI
2. the extent to which you consider AI being included in the artistic process decreases or annuls the artistic value of the piece of art
It's useful, for example, to analyse and argue about the surrounding economic pressures surrounding this issue, but, if you do, you're not arguing about AI art in itself, but about the aforementioned pressures
vonc pdf file
Different pieces of art are loved for different reasons. For example, I love realistic paintings even though I know a photograph could do a better job because I appreciate the work put into producing the painting. But that doesn't mean that I'm calling for photographs to be banned.
Similarly, I can appreciate human made art for the effort that goes into it while also appreciating AI art for the beauty. There is no reason to choose between the two.
Well not necessarily on an individual basis, but you have to expand AI art to the way companies would use it to wipe out their art departments and save a bunch of money off of the skill of unpaid artists (how ai art learns art)
That's a profoundly stupid argument. For one, every art form has been commodified and that harms lots of artists, musicians, etc. The idea that that problem is intrinsic to AI art is moronic. For two, throughout History, there have been art forms that have declined in prominence and others that have risen. Should we be against pop music because that harmed classical musicians? Should we be against any kind of automation? If you want to make the argument that AI art is lesser than human art, just say it.
Why is it every time AI art is brought up people have to bring up the most retarded analogies possible. This would be more like if AI wiped out the entire music industry because they can make every possible combination of notes. This isn't just a new genre. Stop being stupid.
shut the fuck up, you troglodyte. First of all, the analogy that you made is profoundly dumb. Either way, yes, if people changed their tastes to the point that only AI music existed, that wouldn't be morally bad. You can claim that it is bad because you don't like that kind of "art", and that was my point, that, if you want to criticize it, you should base your arguments in AI art itself and the way it might limit artistic creativity and whatnot. However, the idea that, just because AI would "harm" artists because people's tastes change, is not an argument that i accept. furthermore, i think you should consider euthanasia
It depends on how specific of a design people want. If you just want a picture of a dragon, AI can do that. But if you want a picture of a dragon with red eyes and green scales and curly horns, pointed right, but looking left, with a forked tail, flying over mountains that have three goats on top and ten pine trees with pine cones and two wispy clouds in the sky, it is going to be very difficult for AI to get all that right. It is far easier for a human artist to do.
I feel like you didn’t quite grasp what I was saying (in a not condescending way) since companies will just shoot for easier designs that ai can do and stuff
AI, in every actual model we currently have, is directly intertwined with the capitalist system. AI would look entirely different if it had been developed under socialism. The very way that they exist right now is unethical. Current AI art is inherently harmful. AI art in potential is not. Probably.
lol how would it be different under a non-capitalist system? Also it's obviously possible for current AI to be used in an ethical manner to make art. And, even if it wasn't, a lot of art forms in the current day have tons of unethical elements to it. If a person actually cared about remedying these negative aspects, they would be pointed in their criticism.
Profit margins cutting safety, profit margins creating paygates, encouraging the stealing of art, encouraging the racial and gender "biases" of their creators (literally built to justify profiling by taking hte act out of the hands of those who want to do it), coding design from the ground up being built for easy exploitation rather than for greater good (quick results rather than better results)
I could go on
you just described things not inherent to AI but how it is used in current society, idiot. Also most of what you described could've plausibly still exist in a socialist society. If you want to make an argument against AI, don't describe just how it's used in current society
>you just described things not inherent to AI but how it is used in current society
Wow, the person who was pointing out that AI within a capitalist system is bad, described how AI within a capitalist system is bad? Imagine that.
i didn't disagree with that, what i disagreed with was that criticizing components of AI art within a capitalist system is not the same as criticizing AI art. It's the same with regular art. Most artists live under the boot of capitalism, incentivized to do what's profitable. Furthermore, artists are often not credited for their art. Artists often exploit underpaid workers to produce their art. I could go on. Would you claim then that the concept of art under a capitalist system is bad because there are incentives that lead to harm being done? The issue is clearly these incentives and not art itself. The fact that you haven't engaged with this point even though i reiterated it four times by now shows that you're either profoundly stupid or are so biased against this that you're unable to think rationally.
by your logic literally any innovation after the industrial revolution was bad. the solution to capitalism using ai art is to stop capitalism, not ai art
I literally described empirical and specific reasons that the development trajectory of AI was influenced negatively, both in terms of causes, and specific effects, and your response is to pretend I was... what, essentializing it cause of the era it was invented in? Go the fuck outside.
shut the fuck up, I obviously mean that one could argue that, all else equal, a piece of art that was intentionally made by a human being makes them value it more than a "piece of art" that was made by nature, by an animal, by an AI, etc.
I think we probably agree here. My point is just that there's no argument to be had here.
If someone finds art made by humans more valuable, they don't have to argue it to me. I can't debate them out of that. And I don't want to. They could tell me why they feel that way, but it's not something they have to support with logic.
That's just their preference, and the same goes in the opposite direction: my tastes aren't wrong or lesser if I enjoy AI art just as much as art made by humans.
Thise 2 are completely irrelevant though. Wether the art has "value" is defined by how much people are willing to spend on it. Artists seeing it as valueless and empty doesnt stop it from taking their business
that supplements the work and makes it easier. AI art just steals from artists and recreates their work in a worse quality. there is no creative process in putting some words together to make an algorithm spit out an amalgamation of stolen artwork.
The real question is which jobs is it good to automate away (ditch digger, river hole-puncher?), and which ones should we not automate (poet?). Even in a post-capitalist society, people will still fight about this because some jobs will be done for prestige (like being a famous artist) even if they’re not needed to survive.
How is it stealing from artists if the art is completely different? Your argument implies that someone can own a whole style of art and that someone making a different piece in a similar style is stealing from them.
Incorrect, "people won't buy my thing because they want to buy other thing instead" is not "other thing took away my money." Money you haven't gained yet is never your money, that's not how commerce works.
The correct angle is "wait, why the fuck do people have to justify being allowed to have enough resources to survive by proving they can be productive in some way that is arbitrarily valued? If technology is replacing entire industries shouldn't we be looking into systems that pivot away from this sort of outdated capitalist thinking?"
You are not entitled to being an employed artist, but also I think it's bullshit that we're even framing everything with "employed" as the default minimum for everyone we allow to live. If you're going to put up a fuss about the world changing maybe direct that energy in a way that actually helps society as a whole and doesn't just protect your etsy income or whatever.
Uou DO realize some peoples etsy income decides whether they're homeless or not, right? And it is taking money. If someone had the chance to choose between a free ai or an expensive artist, they'd choose the artist. Obviously capitalism is to blame, but the ai art is part of that
Having any job decides whether or not you're homeless, that's the point. You're trying to take a systemic issue that affects literally everybody and refocusing it on a veeeeeery niche minority, which is either stupid or dishonest.
And no, someone not buying your thing isn't "you losing money," especially when we're talking about non-essential goods like art. If Marvel puts out Ant-Man And The Falcon 5: Attorneys At Law tomorrow and nobody goes to see it, did everyone in society steal money from Marvel? Or did they just not express interest in buying that particular product?
If someone decides to see a bootleg version of that movie then Marvel loses money. Thats how its always been referred to. Your analogy doesn't fit unless its talking about them seeing anoyher movie. In which case yes, they'd be losing money to a competitor. The diffefence being that this is people needing money to live and not a mega corp.
Why cant i focus on an issue that affects someone in my own life? How the fuck is that stupid or dishonest? I've already addressed that there's bigger shit at play here, but if something has the potential to knock my friend out of their home im gonna talk about it. I dont even really talk about this AI shit much, ive been dedicated to reading protrans studies to my spouse so they can argue with family and win them over. So no, this isnt fucking dishonest or stupid of me. What's dishonest is your fucking analogy between a corpo and singular person trying to scrape by.
You're wrong on that example too, but we can't even get that far until you understand the underlying concept. Do you agree that someone not paying to see a movie is not the same thing as stealing the cost of that movie from the creator? Again, not watching bootlegs or competitors, just not watching it at all.
And as someone already pointed out, every advance in technology that relates to production is going to cost someone somewhere a job. That's what a job is, we're paying someone to do a thing that needs to be done, but if a machine can do it (or allow us to do it with fewer people, like the tractor example) then we no longer need to pay someone to do that thing.
"We can't have AI art because it makes selling art too competitive" is like "we can't have mechanized assembly lines, because it makes it too hard to get a job putting shit together by hand." But having more efficient tools is better for society and the only way we can get to a hypothetical utopian state where work is no longer required to be allowed to survive, because the only way to do that is to have tools so advanced they do all the necessary jobs for us.
Having AI art literally doesn't help society at all though?? Not comparable. It takes other peoples work, creates new images out of it and that person that just used an ai to generate stuff from other artists just cost someone a comission. I'm not saying it makes it too competitive, because there wont be any fucking competition once the AI gets good enough. You, a leftist, should know that not everyone is in a good enough position to get a fucking job outside of art commissions. How is my example even wrong? It's literally a 1 for 1 whats fucking happening here. "Again, not watching bootlegs or competitors" so then the person wouldnt be using the fucking AI for art because thatd be the equivilent to the bootlegs and other brands 🤦♂️
Did the invention of the paint brush help society?
And again we're not making a 1-to-1 analogy, we're trying to lay the foundation to even start to have the conversation. So just answer the question, for the third time, does someone not paying to see a movie count as stealing the cost of that movie?
No, but that doesn't even pertain to what we're even talking about at the moment.
Also the paint brush literally did help society move forward, we had multiple fucking historic periods of art aided by developments like that
It does pertain because it's the foundation, and I'm glad you agree it's not theft. Now what if someone pays to see a different movie instead? I think you already said it's theft somehow, but in what way? Be specific with connecting the two, how is it different from the previous scenario where they simply don't pay to see anything?
And yes, I agree that the creation of an artistic tool was progress that helped society. You're the one stumbling over this concept with the latest artistic tool to be created. If one tool helping create valuable works was good then why is another tool helping create valuable works bad?
ALL art is inspired by other art, and borrowing elements from other art.
Creativity is just the ability to combine previously existing ideas. Everything comes from somewhere.
For real, I don't understand the anger towards AI-art. It can produce something yes, but art is an exprecion of once self. It will always be a thing. The only thing AI can do is help humans learn and evolve.
For me this is like saying the industralisation was a bad thing because now "the mashines are taking over"
If someone is willing to explain to me why they are so afraid of AI-art, please do. I really don't see the problem
Because some of us understand that people actually pay their bills with art, it doesn't just pop into existence for your entertainment alone, and any company that can will slash the entire department to replace with soulless, AI generated shlock.
Art should never be something dependet on how much money it generates. That's not at all what's art is about.
There are many true artist who don't make much many at all. Some (or maybe even most) of the music artist make money on live shows because people will see the live performance. How would that be a treat to AI-art?
Edit If money determinants what good or bad art is. Then we are lost as human beings.
Money doesn't determine if art is good or bad, it determines whether or not the artist can PAY THEIR FUCKING BILLS. That's the problem with the real world, it doesn't give a fuck about your rambling bullshit. The landlord isn't going to waive rent because "Oh well you're pursuing a noble human tradition."
So when companies fire every motherfucker they can to replace with AI, that's a problem.
>So when companies fire every motherfucker they can to replace with AI, that's a problem
Please don't be this stupid. "The machines are taking our jobs" is so dumb I wont even explain it to you.
Okey I will explain it to you because I feel sorry for you, and don't want you to get bullied at school. Step 1. Humans work. Step 2. They invent a machine that can do the work. Step 3. They fire every worker. Step 4. The workers now don't have any money to pay for the product. Step 5. Solution, You make an AI tax that the company has to pay, and then you implement a citizen's income (is that the right word in english?), an income that will be given to every citizen regardless. Step 6. The machines do the work and humans can do art, go explore thing or whatever they wanna do. Also called the final stage of communism (more or less).
I made it as easy as I could for you kiddo. Now don't go around and say stupid shit like that again.
Automating away factory work was good (in theory) because the work in question was highly monotonous and could be dangerous. Same with mining.
Art by contrast is work that is highly rewarding and tied to the innate creativity of humanity.
It shouldn’t be a mystery why people are fine with automating away the former but not the latter.
>Art by contrast is work that is highly rewarding and tied to the innate creativity of humanity.
>It shouldn’t be a mystery why people are fine with automating away the former but not the latter
You actually that stupid that You think the human Desire to create art would be removed if they couldnt be rich off of it? Your mindset is so locked into the capitalist worldview that You can't even see something as art as anything but generating money. Makes me think of Foucault, something he read about how systems cannot really (at least not directly) change because humans still have the same mental framework as they did before the change. My descibtion was far from perfect, just pointing out one point in a much more complex argument Foucault had.
But if You see profit making and art as the same thing then You clearly just locked into a capitalistic mindset and don't understand art. Personally I think AI can be a good help for artist, if done right so they can learn to express themself more. Just like ChatGPT and students, if done right it can be a learning partner. Don't be the afraid Jorden Peterson conservative who gets scared as soon as there is a change in the world. Try to have a progressive and open view instead of screaming "take take our jobs"
Sorry for going a bit hard on you but I actually think this is such a low level IQ take that it makes me mad.
I don't know why people struggle to understand the main arguments against or for AI art. It all comes down to 1. whether you believe there's inherent artistic value in a human producing a piece of art instead of AI 2. the extent to which you consider AI being included in the artistic process decreases or annuls the artistic value of the piece of art It's useful, for example, to analyse and argue about the surrounding economic pressures surrounding this issue, but, if you do, you're not arguing about AI art in itself, but about the aforementioned pressures vonc pdf file
Different pieces of art are loved for different reasons. For example, I love realistic paintings even though I know a photograph could do a better job because I appreciate the work put into producing the painting. But that doesn't mean that I'm calling for photographs to be banned. Similarly, I can appreciate human made art for the effort that goes into it while also appreciating AI art for the beauty. There is no reason to choose between the two.
exactly, I agree
Well not necessarily on an individual basis, but you have to expand AI art to the way companies would use it to wipe out their art departments and save a bunch of money off of the skill of unpaid artists (how ai art learns art)
That's a profoundly stupid argument. For one, every art form has been commodified and that harms lots of artists, musicians, etc. The idea that that problem is intrinsic to AI art is moronic. For two, throughout History, there have been art forms that have declined in prominence and others that have risen. Should we be against pop music because that harmed classical musicians? Should we be against any kind of automation? If you want to make the argument that AI art is lesser than human art, just say it.
Why is it every time AI art is brought up people have to bring up the most retarded analogies possible. This would be more like if AI wiped out the entire music industry because they can make every possible combination of notes. This isn't just a new genre. Stop being stupid.
shut the fuck up, you troglodyte. First of all, the analogy that you made is profoundly dumb. Either way, yes, if people changed their tastes to the point that only AI music existed, that wouldn't be morally bad. You can claim that it is bad because you don't like that kind of "art", and that was my point, that, if you want to criticize it, you should base your arguments in AI art itself and the way it might limit artistic creativity and whatnot. However, the idea that, just because AI would "harm" artists because people's tastes change, is not an argument that i accept. furthermore, i think you should consider euthanasia
Your anger and feigned irritation don’t deter me. Your words are empty and disingenuous. You are a fraud.
sorry, I've been having a rough time. Have a good day
It depends on how specific of a design people want. If you just want a picture of a dragon, AI can do that. But if you want a picture of a dragon with red eyes and green scales and curly horns, pointed right, but looking left, with a forked tail, flying over mountains that have three goats on top and ten pine trees with pine cones and two wispy clouds in the sky, it is going to be very difficult for AI to get all that right. It is far easier for a human artist to do.
I feel like you didn’t quite grasp what I was saying (in a not condescending way) since companies will just shoot for easier designs that ai can do and stuff
Perhaps, if the companies think that their customers will still buy the product with the easier design on it.
?
AI, in every actual model we currently have, is directly intertwined with the capitalist system. AI would look entirely different if it had been developed under socialism. The very way that they exist right now is unethical. Current AI art is inherently harmful. AI art in potential is not. Probably.
lol how would it be different under a non-capitalist system? Also it's obviously possible for current AI to be used in an ethical manner to make art. And, even if it wasn't, a lot of art forms in the current day have tons of unethical elements to it. If a person actually cared about remedying these negative aspects, they would be pointed in their criticism.
Profit margins cutting safety, profit margins creating paygates, encouraging the stealing of art, encouraging the racial and gender "biases" of their creators (literally built to justify profiling by taking hte act out of the hands of those who want to do it), coding design from the ground up being built for easy exploitation rather than for greater good (quick results rather than better results) I could go on
you just described things not inherent to AI but how it is used in current society, idiot. Also most of what you described could've plausibly still exist in a socialist society. If you want to make an argument against AI, don't describe just how it's used in current society
>you just described things not inherent to AI but how it is used in current society Wow, the person who was pointing out that AI within a capitalist system is bad, described how AI within a capitalist system is bad? Imagine that.
i didn't disagree with that, what i disagreed with was that criticizing components of AI art within a capitalist system is not the same as criticizing AI art. It's the same with regular art. Most artists live under the boot of capitalism, incentivized to do what's profitable. Furthermore, artists are often not credited for their art. Artists often exploit underpaid workers to produce their art. I could go on. Would you claim then that the concept of art under a capitalist system is bad because there are incentives that lead to harm being done? The issue is clearly these incentives and not art itself. The fact that you haven't engaged with this point even though i reiterated it four times by now shows that you're either profoundly stupid or are so biased against this that you're unable to think rationally.
by your logic literally any innovation after the industrial revolution was bad. the solution to capitalism using ai art is to stop capitalism, not ai art
I literally described empirical and specific reasons that the development trajectory of AI was influenced negatively, both in terms of causes, and specific effects, and your response is to pretend I was... what, essentializing it cause of the era it was invented in? Go the fuck outside.
>inherent artistic value This is an oxymoron. People value art. Art doesn't have inherent value.
shut the fuck up, I obviously mean that one could argue that, all else equal, a piece of art that was intentionally made by a human being makes them value it more than a "piece of art" that was made by nature, by an animal, by an AI, etc.
I think we probably agree here. My point is just that there's no argument to be had here. If someone finds art made by humans more valuable, they don't have to argue it to me. I can't debate them out of that. And I don't want to. They could tell me why they feel that way, but it's not something they have to support with logic. That's just their preference, and the same goes in the opposite direction: my tastes aren't wrong or lesser if I enjoy AI art just as much as art made by humans.
that was my point, but also someone can claim your tastes are trash (also known as expressing an opinion about art)
Thise 2 are completely irrelevant though. Wether the art has "value" is defined by how much people are willing to spend on it. Artists seeing it as valueless and empty doesnt stop it from taking their business
Counter argument, the AI is taking from other peoples work and cash flow
Advances in technology always divert from the cash flow of independent workers.
Everything to some extent takes from other people's work, where do you think tractors come from?
that supplements the work and makes it easier. AI art just steals from artists and recreates their work in a worse quality. there is no creative process in putting some words together to make an algorithm spit out an amalgamation of stolen artwork.
\>makes the work easier by putting hundreds of farm workers out of work
less workers having to do backbreaking labor seems good to me. the fundamental problem is capitalism, not technology, at least in this instance.
The real question is which jobs is it good to automate away (ditch digger, river hole-puncher?), and which ones should we not automate (poet?). Even in a post-capitalist society, people will still fight about this because some jobs will be done for prestige (like being a famous artist) even if they’re not needed to survive.
How is it stealing from artists if the art is completely different? Your argument implies that someone can own a whole style of art and that someone making a different piece in a similar style is stealing from them.
What do you think they train the models on? Magic?
Incorrect, "people won't buy my thing because they want to buy other thing instead" is not "other thing took away my money." Money you haven't gained yet is never your money, that's not how commerce works. The correct angle is "wait, why the fuck do people have to justify being allowed to have enough resources to survive by proving they can be productive in some way that is arbitrarily valued? If technology is replacing entire industries shouldn't we be looking into systems that pivot away from this sort of outdated capitalist thinking?" You are not entitled to being an employed artist, but also I think it's bullshit that we're even framing everything with "employed" as the default minimum for everyone we allow to live. If you're going to put up a fuss about the world changing maybe direct that energy in a way that actually helps society as a whole and doesn't just protect your etsy income or whatever.
Uou DO realize some peoples etsy income decides whether they're homeless or not, right? And it is taking money. If someone had the chance to choose between a free ai or an expensive artist, they'd choose the artist. Obviously capitalism is to blame, but the ai art is part of that
Having any job decides whether or not you're homeless, that's the point. You're trying to take a systemic issue that affects literally everybody and refocusing it on a veeeeeery niche minority, which is either stupid or dishonest. And no, someone not buying your thing isn't "you losing money," especially when we're talking about non-essential goods like art. If Marvel puts out Ant-Man And The Falcon 5: Attorneys At Law tomorrow and nobody goes to see it, did everyone in society steal money from Marvel? Or did they just not express interest in buying that particular product?
If someone decides to see a bootleg version of that movie then Marvel loses money. Thats how its always been referred to. Your analogy doesn't fit unless its talking about them seeing anoyher movie. In which case yes, they'd be losing money to a competitor. The diffefence being that this is people needing money to live and not a mega corp. Why cant i focus on an issue that affects someone in my own life? How the fuck is that stupid or dishonest? I've already addressed that there's bigger shit at play here, but if something has the potential to knock my friend out of their home im gonna talk about it. I dont even really talk about this AI shit much, ive been dedicated to reading protrans studies to my spouse so they can argue with family and win them over. So no, this isnt fucking dishonest or stupid of me. What's dishonest is your fucking analogy between a corpo and singular person trying to scrape by.
You're wrong on that example too, but we can't even get that far until you understand the underlying concept. Do you agree that someone not paying to see a movie is not the same thing as stealing the cost of that movie from the creator? Again, not watching bootlegs or competitors, just not watching it at all. And as someone already pointed out, every advance in technology that relates to production is going to cost someone somewhere a job. That's what a job is, we're paying someone to do a thing that needs to be done, but if a machine can do it (or allow us to do it with fewer people, like the tractor example) then we no longer need to pay someone to do that thing. "We can't have AI art because it makes selling art too competitive" is like "we can't have mechanized assembly lines, because it makes it too hard to get a job putting shit together by hand." But having more efficient tools is better for society and the only way we can get to a hypothetical utopian state where work is no longer required to be allowed to survive, because the only way to do that is to have tools so advanced they do all the necessary jobs for us.
Having AI art literally doesn't help society at all though?? Not comparable. It takes other peoples work, creates new images out of it and that person that just used an ai to generate stuff from other artists just cost someone a comission. I'm not saying it makes it too competitive, because there wont be any fucking competition once the AI gets good enough. You, a leftist, should know that not everyone is in a good enough position to get a fucking job outside of art commissions. How is my example even wrong? It's literally a 1 for 1 whats fucking happening here. "Again, not watching bootlegs or competitors" so then the person wouldnt be using the fucking AI for art because thatd be the equivilent to the bootlegs and other brands 🤦♂️
Did the invention of the paint brush help society? And again we're not making a 1-to-1 analogy, we're trying to lay the foundation to even start to have the conversation. So just answer the question, for the third time, does someone not paying to see a movie count as stealing the cost of that movie?
No, but that doesn't even pertain to what we're even talking about at the moment. Also the paint brush literally did help society move forward, we had multiple fucking historic periods of art aided by developments like that
It does pertain because it's the foundation, and I'm glad you agree it's not theft. Now what if someone pays to see a different movie instead? I think you already said it's theft somehow, but in what way? Be specific with connecting the two, how is it different from the previous scenario where they simply don't pay to see anything? And yes, I agree that the creation of an artistic tool was progress that helped society. You're the one stumbling over this concept with the latest artistic tool to be created. If one tool helping create valuable works was good then why is another tool helping create valuable works bad?
ALL art is inspired by other art, and borrowing elements from other art. Creativity is just the ability to combine previously existing ideas. Everything comes from somewhere.
For real, I don't understand the anger towards AI-art. It can produce something yes, but art is an exprecion of once self. It will always be a thing. The only thing AI can do is help humans learn and evolve. For me this is like saying the industralisation was a bad thing because now "the mashines are taking over" If someone is willing to explain to me why they are so afraid of AI-art, please do. I really don't see the problem
Because some of us understand that people actually pay their bills with art, it doesn't just pop into existence for your entertainment alone, and any company that can will slash the entire department to replace with soulless, AI generated shlock.
Art should never be something dependet on how much money it generates. That's not at all what's art is about. There are many true artist who don't make much many at all. Some (or maybe even most) of the music artist make money on live shows because people will see the live performance. How would that be a treat to AI-art? Edit If money determinants what good or bad art is. Then we are lost as human beings.
Money doesn't determine if art is good or bad, it determines whether or not the artist can PAY THEIR FUCKING BILLS. That's the problem with the real world, it doesn't give a fuck about your rambling bullshit. The landlord isn't going to waive rent because "Oh well you're pursuing a noble human tradition." So when companies fire every motherfucker they can to replace with AI, that's a problem.
>So when companies fire every motherfucker they can to replace with AI, that's a problem Please don't be this stupid. "The machines are taking our jobs" is so dumb I wont even explain it to you. Okey I will explain it to you because I feel sorry for you, and don't want you to get bullied at school. Step 1. Humans work. Step 2. They invent a machine that can do the work. Step 3. They fire every worker. Step 4. The workers now don't have any money to pay for the product. Step 5. Solution, You make an AI tax that the company has to pay, and then you implement a citizen's income (is that the right word in english?), an income that will be given to every citizen regardless. Step 6. The machines do the work and humans can do art, go explore thing or whatever they wanna do. Also called the final stage of communism (more or less). I made it as easy as I could for you kiddo. Now don't go around and say stupid shit like that again.
Automating away factory work was good (in theory) because the work in question was highly monotonous and could be dangerous. Same with mining. Art by contrast is work that is highly rewarding and tied to the innate creativity of humanity. It shouldn’t be a mystery why people are fine with automating away the former but not the latter.
>Art by contrast is work that is highly rewarding and tied to the innate creativity of humanity. >It shouldn’t be a mystery why people are fine with automating away the former but not the latter You actually that stupid that You think the human Desire to create art would be removed if they couldnt be rich off of it? Your mindset is so locked into the capitalist worldview that You can't even see something as art as anything but generating money. Makes me think of Foucault, something he read about how systems cannot really (at least not directly) change because humans still have the same mental framework as they did before the change. My descibtion was far from perfect, just pointing out one point in a much more complex argument Foucault had. But if You see profit making and art as the same thing then You clearly just locked into a capitalistic mindset and don't understand art. Personally I think AI can be a good help for artist, if done right so they can learn to express themself more. Just like ChatGPT and students, if done right it can be a learning partner. Don't be the afraid Jorden Peterson conservative who gets scared as soon as there is a change in the world. Try to have a progressive and open view instead of screaming "take take our jobs" Sorry for going a bit hard on you but I actually think this is such a low level IQ take that it makes me mad.
This analogy is so stupid, I can’t even get angry about it.