So it raises the floor, but actually will entrench those who are the most talented writers, programmers, artists.
So it raises the floor, but actually will entrench those who are the most talented writers, programmers, artists.
If you trained a model on what human faces looked like exclusively based on images generated in the 80-90s and compared it to models trained on pictures taken in the 10s-20s you might come away thinking that humans have somehow esthetically become more "beautiful" over that time frame if you didn't account for the use of filters (which at this point are practically baked in) as one example.
Why should they be bogged down just like others were? Woe for the coming mediocrity wave suggests the on-ramp filter was valued at the right amount to produce "objective quality" before gen AI. But that was merely objective popularity. Old skills are offset by new technology all the time. If eternal September is coming to more arts we should see platforms pop up that facilitate perfecting the art form most want to make and experience at any rate they choose. Excellence can surely come from outside the current crop of expert/curator viewpoints with agreed upon toil and trend lengths.
A similar thing happened when microbloggers took over columnists audience, podcasters over radio. You can still value journalistic talent however you like, online shitstorms just change the spread of trends people are aware of and willing to pay for. The ceiling is way more unlimited this way.
> So it raises the floor, but actually will entrench those who are the most talented writers, programmers, artists.
If this will be true, it will create even more inequality - average masses on cca same level, and few stellar very wealthy/influential talented folks. I don't see current AI as anything but more sophisticated ways to extract more money from population via monitoring, evaluation and more precise advertising. Any actually beneficial effort will be very marginal in comparison.