The cat's out of the bag on AI art. There's gonna be regular drama about it for the next few years and then it will just become part of life.
Same with other applications of AI over time.
Same with other applications of AI over time.
Technology has done a lot more do destroy blue-collar jobs over the last century, and so white-collar people have been pretty chill about it. But I think you're right that we'll see a change around that.
ChatGPT, for example, is pretty bad at creating excellent prose with reliable information. But it's extremely good at creating a bullshit memo that nobody will really read or act upon. And I think there are a lot of people out there with bullshit jobs that will find themselves at risk.
It'd be interesting to know if this is true. My gut says it might be the opposite. Maybe many "unskilled" jobs are moved out of the U.S. for example, but that's attributable to geopolitics not technology.
But note that this is only non-farm employment. Currently about 1% of the US's population works in agriculture. At around the same time, 31% of people did farm work: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/the-life-of-americ...
I'll note that offshoring is also driven by technological change. In particular, cheap global shipping and communication. It's true a bunch of manufacturing jobs went to places with cheaper labor. But if those jobs had stayed here, there would still be a lot less of them because our higher labor prices make it more worthwhile to spend on factory automation.
Another area where technology makes a big difference is in household labor. In 1910, 14.5% people were engaged in either domestic or personal service. Now it's 1%. We owe a lot of that to things like the washing machine and the dishwasher.
But maybe not always. We are also seeing rising inequality and increased capital concentration. So there's a risk that we might head in the direction of, say, preindustrial England, where to survive people have to labor to make the rich happy.
There's also the phenomenon of bullshit jobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
As the relationship between labor and value becomes less and less direct, it becomes easier for waste to creep in. E.g., a manger who over-hires not because the new people are needed to do anything, but because their status rises with their headcount.
So hopefully as all of these white-collar workers are forced to find new employment, we will find socially positive things for them to do. But I don't think it's guaranteed.
Either way I think the difference between e.g. driving and animating is the passion component. For the most part, I don't think anybody really enjoys working as a bus driver for example… in many ways it's a brutal and thankless job. By contrast people who work in animation tend to really, really love animation and pour themselves into their craft.
It certainly creates problems for drivers to have their job automated away, but for the most part nobody is being denied of earning a living with their passion in the process. By replacing artists with AI you're eliminating the possibility for many artists to produce art because they're going to have to find some other kind of work which will commandeer the majority of their time and energy instead, leaving little for creative pursuits.
Ideally it's the menial and mindless things that get automated, so long as the displaced workers are provided for. It's squandering of human potential on a massive scale for people to have to do those things just to exist.
Millions of Professional Drivers Will Be Replaced by Self-Driving Vehicles
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/millions-professional...
Consuming. The machines will create culture, humans will consume it.
No more wars, etc - just intellectuals working in intellectual fields pursuing whatever their curiosity takes them.
The example I remember from the time was the relative ease of translating the decision trees of pharmacists (who in the US today earn a doctorate degree before practicing) into code versus catching a softly lobbed tennis ball with a robotic arm. A kid in elementary school can do the second task using their own arm without giving it any thought, but creating a hardware/software system to track the moving object, estimate trajectory, extrapolate future location, decide which rotations/translations need to be applied about the joints of the shoulder/arm/elbow/wrist to move your hand into the right position to make the catch, and then to actuate your hand closed at the right time with the right pressure is quite involved.
Imagine if you can get movies custom made to your own personal preferences?
> Sounds terrible and I will hold my tongue on the quality of your aesthetic judgment.
Thank god! Your opinion would devastate me!
Anyway, I'm super excited to be able to prompt an AI to "create another kubrick movie in the modern era" or "make a seinfeld episode about living under covid" or something.
A better large language model would generate a script 100x better than any of the current hollywood writers (who do a pretty piss poor job as it is...)
Obviously everyone knows what the genre of fiction means. But that wasn't what you said in the slightest lmfao.
You'll get one Kubrick/Spielberg/George Lucas every decade. But the vast majority of what's produced is another dumb Star Wars movie or another Marvel cash grab.
If you are the type of person who complains about the fifth transformer movie, or ask why Hollywood doesn't want to take a try on new things, the cheaper a production can be made, the better the ods that somebody can make it.
In a world where you need 200 million dollars to create a game, only studios of that size can make the games, and we never get Kerbal Space Program, Rimworld or Minecraft.
As a quick example of movies: Pearl Harbor would have been a great war movie if it had toned down the rom-com part by about 80%, but then it would have lost a big part of the audience. On the other hand, it would have been a great romantic movie if it had turned down the war content by about 80%, but then it would have lost the other part of the audience.
As it is, it is too long, and not a good movie in the first place.
Now it appears to me from your comment that you want to find a way to hate this no matter the merits, but honestly most people will want to watch things they like, and then be delighted and surprised. Game of Thrones did as well as it did because of the plot twists, not because it was predictable. The CGI and general budget went up for the last seasons and they are universally looked upon as the worst ones.
As a challenge for you: which movie, that you consider art, sold at least 10 million tickets in its original theater run?
You should talk to the average Netflix user and see if they can name any of the writers/director/producers.
They might be able to name a couple of the main actors/actresses.
No one cares about the producers/director for the vast majority of media.
Some small % of people care (who are interested in the production or whatever) and I'm sure they'll continue to watch purely human generated content.
The vast majority of people will move on because AI generated media will be 100x better than the garbage scripts that hollywood writers put out.
I agree that there are a few directors who are incredibly high quality (your tarantino, kubrick, etc.) and people of those caliber will continue to be successful.
But yeah, I'd much rather have an AI generate me a movie than watch Disney's next cash grab star wars movie (that has almost comically bad writing).