Submitted by Ok_Sea_6214 t3_11uez2d in singularity
just-a-dreamer- t1_jcojxnl wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Midjourney v5 is now beyond the uncanny valley effect, I can no longer tell it's fake by Ok_Sea_6214
Art is a business within capitalist society. If you can't make money, you die in the streets.
If capitalism can be destroyed, people might be able to spend leisure time on art projects.
blueit1234567 t1_jcony04 wrote
The motivation to get good at a skill related to art/music will be gone, since it takes years to attain skill. How can you train yourself to get good at something a computer can always do better? You would immediately feel defeated, and the death of the artist/musician will result. This is my very humble opinion.
just-a-dreamer- t1_jcoodk7 wrote
That concept makes no sense to me. I am below average as a montain climber, yet I do it anyway. I push myself forward. Not for "society", for me.
I ignore other people's accomplishments, for they are not mine and of no use to me.
blueit1234567 t1_jcordqs wrote
I may be thinking of it as a profession. As a hobby, yes I agree.
just-a-dreamer- t1_jcot02j wrote
The goal of AI automation is unemployment for all.
Eventually, there will be no such thing as a profession.
Hotchillipeppa t1_jcoqx8t wrote
People still play go,chess and dota 2, despite their being bots better than the top humans in all 3, people still ride horses despite their being vehicles, people don’t need to be the best to enjoy themselves.
Weak-Lengthiness-420 t1_jcpadu5 wrote
Yep. I’m a 43 year-old man with no NBA aspirations and yet I still love playing basketball.
Almond_Steak t1_jcovko7 wrote
I will never be as good as Messi but I still practice football everyday because I enjoy it.
SimilarSalary9345 t1_jcows8s wrote
I think folk’s most significant motivations for becoming ‘good at art’ are largely the act in itself and a providing a clearer voice for themselves to express their lived experience. You can’t take either of those away, but you can strongly influence the medium. In the way that digital manipulation and illustration tools (Photoshop, Illustrator) might be considered as somehow destroying art, I wonder if people able to elaborately, thoughtfully, and majestically direct AI to create their vision may become a thing of value.
Dwanyelle t1_jcqksss wrote
Some people just enjoy doing certain things.
I've got several hobbies that arguably computers are way better at than I could ever possibly hope to be, but that doesn't discourage me, because I do them for the sake of doing them. I enjoy it. "Because it's there."
Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp2gld wrote
If you can’t make money as an artist, that’s society’s way of telling you that your artwork is not good enough to justify your labor being tied up doing that, so your labor should go towards producing things that consumers actually value. If capitalism was destroyed, those market signals would be lost.
Capitalism is about helping other people. It’s selfish to think that you’re entitled to earn a living — meaning other people are obligated to expend resources to support you — without actually doing stuff that other people value.
just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp5pxg wrote
Capitalism does not help anybody, that is a dumb statement. I guess you mean trade does help people in a mutual beneficial way, that is true to some extent.
Capitalism is the art of exploitation of men by men in the most efficient way. It has nothing to do with helping anybody.
You are quick to assume every labor must be allocated to "help" someone, but that does not apply to necessities/assets like housing, education, consumer goods, energy,....
Thus for some to live off assets and do next to nothing all day, many must "help" through their labor. An age old problem, hopefully will get solved by AI automation.
For most of human history since the invention of agriculture, slavery of 10%-30% of the human population was the norm throughout all societies.
Capitalism just builds on the human condition, yet it has to be eradicated along the way humans relate to each other in general.
Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp67o9 wrote
Capitalism is simply a web of voluntary trades. It’s the opposite of exploitative. The exploitative institution in our society is the government, which systematically violates private property rights.
just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp7cpw wrote
There is no such thing as private property without the government. The government usually is a mere represention of property owners.
It's a dumb statement to think of property as "private" outside the control of government. Defended by what? Your family? How many men and weapons could you bring to the party?
Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp7jfq wrote
Defended by private security.
just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp9h28 wrote
And they will defend you because? Little history lesson by Niccolò Machiavelli who wrote about the dangers of mercenaries.
"The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe;
The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way."
Point is, mercaneries are loyal untill they are not. They band with any gang that is out for plunder and cut your throat.
I recently read an article that 15% of rural families were displaced from their land in cartel controlled areas of Columbia. Where the government is weak, the strong rule eventually and take what they want.
Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcpasv5 wrote
If private property rights are generally respected in a society, violent plunderers would be outcompeted by peaceful organizations. Public opinion would be against the criminal gang.
just-a-dreamer- t1_jcpfa3q wrote
That is called government then. Property owners coming together and provide mutual defence of shared interest.
If I lack property and have nothing to lose, why would I respect your property? That is against human nature.
Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcpfo0b wrote
The phrase “property owners coming together and providing mutual defense of shared interest” does not describe the state, it describes a private company, because it’s consensual. The state is the institution with a monopoly on violence, and by definition it’s not based on consent.
Dwanyelle t1_jcql6o7 wrote
Who says the state isn't based on consent? There are plenty that aren't, and none that completely do, but it is at least something tried for among certain governments.
Dwanyelle t1_jcqlbht wrote
In a representative government, it's whole idea is that it is based on consent. The problem becomes folks with already a ton being greedy fucks who can bride the people running the government, since humans are fallible.
[deleted] t1_jcq1izd wrote
[deleted]
lawrebx t1_jcowalu wrote
Why does capitalism have to be destroyed?
At least under capitalism, you get to make the call on balancing lifestyle and working hours instead of mandate fixed labor contribution. That seems like it would be better for artists?
Frumpagumpus t1_jcp2z5t wrote
they have student loans
Dwanyelle t1_jcqlisk wrote
Because we have a system where people who work an hour a week on average make way more than someone working eighty hours a week.
That's the sign of a broken system.
lawrebx t1_jcqrlyr wrote
I agree the system is broken, but I also see the U.S. as an outlier in the capitalist world. Inequality tends to improve with increased wealth generation across the world.
Look at inequality vs. per capita GDP.
The U.S. is generating the same wealth as other capitalist countries, but with far greater inequality. Looking at the data, the root cause of our structural inequality seems to be in spite of our economic system rather than because of it.
So my question is this - what do you see as the fundamental issue and what system would you propose?
Dwanyelle t1_jcrrtok wrote
I'm honestly not sure, tbh.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments