Quite a few concepts to discuss here. Fast forward to the future where all "jobs" are performed by robots.
Who's going to own those robots? And what is the point of having them if the general populace can't afford to buy whatever they produce? In the absence of some kind of universal income scheme, this would tend to be self-balancing.
As for AI replacing artists, writers, musicians, etc I believe this also would eventually balance out. There are people who like paintings of Elvis on velvet and people who like the old masters. If Average Joe wants his art produced by AI, he has to be pretty clear on what he wants to see, and how many Average Joes can articulate that? I'm pretty good at articulating, but I can't get AI to produce anything close to what I'm asking for.
According to a post I read recently, instead of learning from new material, AI is currently cannibalizing what it has already done, chewing up and regurgitating its previous attempts. You can experience this for yourself using the "generate image" button in Substack posts. Write out a decent prompt, see what you get, repeat the prompt and see if it's any better.
Finally, even if AI gets insanely good at creating, I'm sure there will always be a certain cachet to owning original art of whatever kind.
"Maybe as a society we should raise the bottom line from homelessness to something slightly better, considering the vast leaps in technology we've been through. Imagine a world where, if you lose your job, you don’t have to explain to your children they need to skip meals.
Imagine a world where people going through crises don’t wind up on the streets."
Sounds nice but if it's in CBDC Biden bucks that can't be spent on guns or fossil fuels, I'll pass thanks, I'd rather live in a tent with my dog in the woods, than a "15 minute city."
I love your thoughts on this topic. Thanks for your insight.
Quite a few concepts to discuss here. Fast forward to the future where all "jobs" are performed by robots.
Who's going to own those robots? And what is the point of having them if the general populace can't afford to buy whatever they produce? In the absence of some kind of universal income scheme, this would tend to be self-balancing.
As for AI replacing artists, writers, musicians, etc I believe this also would eventually balance out. There are people who like paintings of Elvis on velvet and people who like the old masters. If Average Joe wants his art produced by AI, he has to be pretty clear on what he wants to see, and how many Average Joes can articulate that? I'm pretty good at articulating, but I can't get AI to produce anything close to what I'm asking for.
According to a post I read recently, instead of learning from new material, AI is currently cannibalizing what it has already done, chewing up and regurgitating its previous attempts. You can experience this for yourself using the "generate image" button in Substack posts. Write out a decent prompt, see what you get, repeat the prompt and see if it's any better.
Finally, even if AI gets insanely good at creating, I'm sure there will always be a certain cachet to owning original art of whatever kind.
"Maybe as a society we should raise the bottom line from homelessness to something slightly better, considering the vast leaps in technology we've been through. Imagine a world where, if you lose your job, you don’t have to explain to your children they need to skip meals.
Imagine a world where people going through crises don’t wind up on the streets."
Sounds nice but if it's in CBDC Biden bucks that can't be spent on guns or fossil fuels, I'll pass thanks, I'd rather live in a tent with my dog in the woods, than a "15 minute city."