Science doesn't work that way, it's not a tech tree in a game of civilisation where you pick one thing to research at a time, and we're not going to ban all research into AI just because a vocal minority wants to feel special and doesn't like that computers can do similar things to them now.
That's like banning research into the printing press so that scribes can be the only ones able to copy books.
I do not believe that this is what Ms. Maciejewska advocates for. The problem here is not AI, it's that artists (and, by extension, all of us) need money so they can eat. The solution is either for artists to find other careers, or to solve their dependency on selling art for money.
Of those two solutions, I would find number one to be worse. I wish to live in a world where artists can devote themselves to their craft full-time without living in precarious conditions, because that is a world where we get large amounts of great art.
Therefore, the second solution: a fundamental change in our economic system, so that people can be provided for without the need for wage labour.
Firstly, I've already laid out why I want artists to continue to be able to live off full-time art.
Secondly, I take issue with the fact that prior automation wasn't so bad for the world: the fact that work that previously needed highly skilled labourers to be performed now could be done by a simple machine operator massively weakened the position of the workers in comparison to the factory owners, thus enabling many of the exploitative practices you see up to today. Luddism didn't come from nowhere - people saw that these new technologies massively decreased their quality of life and thus they opposed them.
Certainly, quality of life has increased massively thanks to automation, and it could do once more with AI. I do not argue to halt technological progress in it's step.
I argue that a technological revolution can serve the interests of either the working or the owning class, and we should ensure that the former comes out on top. Because if we are not careful, AI can easily reproduce and even exacerbate the problems and inequalities capitalism already has.
Therefore, the second solution: a fundamental change in our economic system, so that people can be provided for without the need for wage labour.
I'm so tired of this argument. Get over it, this is not happening in any of our lifetimes, or in the next 10 generations. People are greedy and wage labour will absolutely never go away until we have a way to automate everything, which we don't.
Ah yes, any attempt to change our fundamental material conditions is inherently pointless, so we shouldn't even try. Call me an idealist, but I am unconvinced by your reasoning.
As long as greedy people are at the top UBI is not happening, they will use AI and other automation to line their own pockets. Show me any time in history when greedy people were not at the top and I might change my mind
If the artists are getting outcompeted by AI, doesn't that necessarily mean that the AI would be doing a better job at creating "large amounts of great art"?
And why do we think that artists will not just be empowered by AI to create more and greater art themselves? Should we also ban digital art tools so that artists are forced to use more labor intensive paint-based art creation methods?
That's a good point, the good sit down restaurants are forced to offer something more than the cheap McDonald's to compete Same with the artists. The good ones that actually have something to offer will do good.
AI is not going to put a ban on artists it'll just give them competition
What point are you trying to make? In that scenario AI would not be outcompeting actual artists. Which is not what the person I responded to said would happen.
As humans, many of us understand art to not be just about the product but also about the process. But if being able to do the process depends on selling the product (yes, the idea of the starving artist is very romantic, but it's not actually that great for the artist), then taking away the commercially viable part of art and delegating it to machines destroys human art.
Yes, there will still be people who are independently rich and able to dedicate themselves to artistic pursuits. And others will be able to dabble in artistic endeavours in their free time. But that is nothing compared to having the possibility for people to be full-time (or significant part-time) artists as is currently possible, even if already difficult.
Yes, people can use technology, including AI, to make art. But that doesn't change the effect of AI on art as a commercially viable product, so it isn't really relevant to the discussion.
I think it does change that. It makes it easier for an artist to produce more art and at a higher standard of quality, so they can actually be more productive with the use of technology and reap additional profits from that extra productivity. Using photoshop for art is exactly the same as AI art.
The difference is that people who want things like comissions are actually empowered through AI to make their OWN art, themselves, rather than havingt to depend on someone with specialized rendering skills to show their idea. The result is more and broader access to artistic creation - and even more avilability to those without the means to pay specialized artists.
No one chooses to copy books for their entire life, they do it as a job so they can make money and live. People who have no monetary restrictions will choose to pursue art or writing because it fulfills our basic human desire for creativity.
32
u/duckrollin Jun 02 '24
Science doesn't work that way, it's not a tech tree in a game of civilisation where you pick one thing to research at a time, and we're not going to ban all research into AI just because a vocal minority wants to feel special and doesn't like that computers can do similar things to them now.
That's like banning research into the printing press so that scribes can be the only ones able to copy books.