Comment by XorNot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by XorNot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes."

Except this quote is just...internet clickbait. As though technological development is a straight line with easily predictable outcomes. Hell it's even engaging in a bait and switch argument: "I want to art and writing" -> well, AI isn't stopping you from doing those thing versus the reality of creative work for hire -> "I want to be paid to do art and writing".

Setting aside the obvious "when your hobby becomes your job it tends to cease being your hobby" which so many Twitch influencers discover, the headline argument is as though someone has overtly set out to build generative AI and not "done the obvious thing of making a laundry and dishwashing robot" (while you know, also ignoring that technically we have both those things and built them almost immediately - literally washing machines and dishwashers).

The complaint is...well frankly classist as hell. "Why should lower myself to manual labor? Take those other people's jobs away first". It sounds profound but says nothing: Twitter in a nutshell.

Nothing about the quote is related to gainful employment or monetary transaction.

It is entirely about the prospect of technology serving people by freeing their time from chores to pursue luxury activities. Instead of that expectation, the reality of technological advancement that AI has given us so far has been to do those pursuits of pleasure for us, while we still have to do mundane, unfulfilling chores in our daily lives.

It's purely a tongue-in-cheek quip about our daily lives. It follows the standard formula for pretty much all one-liners jokes. Some technology- vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, laundry machines- eliminated many hours of work. Instead of advancing this kind of benefit for people, the technology took the benefit for itself.

Setup, juxtaposed by punchline.

Something can be a joke and still be worth taking seriously. In this case, the joke is misleading on an important topic - the existence of AI changes economic realities but has no bearing on how humans spend their leisure time, or how much of that leisure time they have. In fact, it probably will increase the amount of leisure time available on net since it is freeing us up as a species from needing to do a bunch of artistic and creative chores.

> "freeing us up as a species from needing to do a bunch of artistic and creative chores."

Would you please clarify something? You're saying that we need to be freed from "artistic and creative chores" -- so that we can be free to do what?

For me personally, the highest-quality leisure I can think of is to follow creative pursuits and hone my artistic abilities (e.g. playing a musical instrument, making something with my hands, etc.)

Free to do whatever you like. If you want to sit around playing musical instruments in your spare time nothing is stopping you.

We've had superhuman chess AI for decades and that hasn't stopped anyone playing chess. But if I want to review a game showcasing the highest level of chess play I wouldn't turn to human games. Similarly, sooner or later, if I want a specific picture of something I'm not going to be wasting the time of an artist to get it.

This is such a genuinely weird worldview to me.

Like you’re missing a huge and meaningful chunk of one of the best parts of humanity.

I'm talking about work. There are people who enjoy their work, but they are rather rare. Work is a "huge and meaningful chunk" of our lives, but frankly it'd be a better world if it wasn't.

You sure seemed to be talking about your spare time a moment ago.

The part where I said "Free to do whatever you like. If you want to sit around playing musical instruments in your spare time nothing is stopping you."? I was clarifying that I wasn't talking about leisure time.

And how do you think that attitude is limiting anyone? It seems fairly open to me.

> In fact, it probably will increase the amount of leisure time available on net since it is freeing us up as a species from needing to do a bunch of artistic and creative chores.

Historically, that has just been not true.

If art is your job, then art is a chore.

For people who do art just for fun, AI is a net positive.

That's why employment is relevant to the quip.

Well, I interpreted it about as different as possible, but to each their own I guess. Though it makes no sense to me to call it "clickbait". Bait for what? The original commenter was just expressing an opinion, not selling ads or something.

I don't think it's a statement about "classic" at all - it's a statement that people generally enjoy writing and making art, and people generally don't enjoy doing their dishes or laundry. Tech used to be about making the "hard drudgery easier".

Right but..for whom? Again: AI existing doesn't stop people doing writing or making art.

What it does stop is getting paid for those activities where they are paid for: but then, that's not "unbridled creativity" anymore - that's "corporate says we need a stylized picture of a man standing in a field by tomorrow".

Or it's the exact thing the author in the linked blog here is talking about: what was their actual job?

> One morning, I sat down at my desk to craft yet another press release touting yet another "game-changing" startup that had raised - yet another - $25 million. And I realized I couldn't remember the last time I'd written something I believed in. The words that used to flow felt like trying to squeeze ancient toothpaste from an empty tube.

Literally getting paid to write...just not what they wanted to be writing.

... There is no AI or anything that can do your laundry or dishes. There is AI that can do your hobby. That's literally all the quote is pointing out.

You can talk about how capitalism ruins art, sure, but that's a different topic than the quote.

There is a machine that does laundry and dishes. You don’t need „AI“ for that - by the way it’s actually machine learning - AI is another bullshit term.

One of my hobbies is creating art with machine learning tools - so that’s the opposite, it is enabling me to do my hobby.

I get the dangers of this technology but I really don’t see why it would prevent anyone from pursuing their hobbies.

Edit:// oh an capitalism doesn’t ruin art, quite the opposite. Any political system needs art, and in capitalism it’s extremely individualistic art that is needed, which is why I would argue humanity has produced more and more varied art since capitalism exists than ever before.

But there’s no AI that can do your hobby either. If your hobby is painting… are you painting for those who are now paying Chatgpt for their painting needs? Have you been robbed of your hobby? No. The scenario is as imaginary as Dishwashgpt remains.

If wanting to reduce menial tasks in my life is classist, then sign me up.

You're on a website of software developers. Our entire job description is to eliminate white collar work. Not a lot of secretaries and typists anymore. Less and less classic sysadmins as well.

Not entirely clear to me how that’s relevant. I merely disagree with valorization of menial work and the people who do it.

> I merely disagree with valorization of menial work and the people who do it.

With you all the way on wiping out menial work; if we can automate it away that is a win for all of us. But do be careful when talking about the people who do it - they're generally wonderful and making very real and measurable contributions to the wellbeing of everyone else. They deserve a bit of valorization. Not saints, but but certainly up there on the scale of people putting in a good effort.

Girl, same. I am never going to the grocery store again. Thank god for the economic underclass willing to do delivery. They're like the plankton of the economic ecosystem. Without them, it all falls apart. Sad but necessary. But, as karma, delivery will eventually be the only job left for all of us, until we get deep enough into Moravec's paradox for that to eventually be automated too.

Moravec's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

> delivery will eventually be the only job left for all of us

Reminds me of Death Stranding, aka "FedEx Simulator". The game also mentioned the topic of automation a few times.

I'm pretty sure the point is that the exact sort of "art" companies are using AI to create is included in the "menial tasks" category, and that we're therefore better off letting AI take over said menial tasks so that we can spend time on actual creative endeavors rather than soul-crushing corporate drudgery like (in the article author's case) press releases.

My takeaway was that it said more about the author (and those preaching it) than about AI.

1. The obvious thing is that technology (and various things we’ve called AI over time) actually has given laundry robots and dish washing robots. Her follow up tweet said of course she knows and that she's joking, but the joke/criticism relies on those things not existing. I kinda think she just forgot, as we all do, as we take technology for granted.

2. Second takeaway was the same as you, with all the free time we have now—and the free time we hypothetically would get with laundry AI—hard to believe we’re really going to start our great American novel.

3. Her follow up was something like “I don’t actually mean laundry and dishes, I mean it metaphorically”. This just read to me as "I just want things that I want. And don’t want things I don’t want. Don't ask me what those things are." We all do, but it muddles any potential wisdom in the quip if we can just swap laundry, dishes, writing, and art for whatever.

So basically a nothing burger about what AI is today or should be, but loud expression of that nothing anyway. I thought it was more like a spitball take (albeit a tad clickbaity and trolling) and had it gotten lost in the wind it would have been fine, but it going viral said something about current opinion.

The way to read it is “I want AI to automate the drudgery of life, not remove the joy from it”. The specifics are inserted because it makes it more pithy and relatable.

That was the gist I got too, but the relatable-ness felt undermined by the pithiness and the specifics. It resonated though, which is why I felt it said something about where people are at.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com