Hacker News Reader

Comment by nathanyukai | Hacker News Reader

"replace things that were done by humans" isn't a loss by itself, if it frees up human labour to do other things. If human replaced by AI can't find better things to do, such that it makes them poorer, or anti-social its a loss but not necessarily AI's fault.

View on HN

Doesn't apply to all situations, but "replace things that were done by humans" in arts can absolutely be a loss by itself. Making graphics/speech/video a commodity doesn't replace designers, voice actors, or directors, but we've definitely see it can directly harm them and the people that enjoy their work.

> can't find better things to do, such that it makes them poorer, or anti-social its a loss

I feel like this misses the point a bit - lost income/sustainability for artists is obviously a big issue we'll be facing, but looking for a performance indicator in an artistic endeavour doesn't really get you anywhere. There's more ways to value a painting than "what the market would pay" and "potential heat output as firewood", right?

How do you feel about what word processors did to the typist career?

How do you feel about replacing general labor, period, and doing so for a class that no longer maintains a semblance of a social safety net? Do you think there's a difference between displacing one profession and displacing most professions at once?

Do you people ever step out of the abstract and think about the actual context you're living in?

I will gladly pay taxes directed for retraining artists, but I will not pay to listen to Wil Wheaton narrate another book badly when my computer can do it better.

I mentioned typists, you abstracted it to “most professions at once”, and you give me a hard time for being too abstract?

I agree with your criticism, just not sure you understand who you were criticizing. But I hope you can think about actual context and see if that tempers what seems like a pretty emotional take on AI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com