Submitted by rpaul9578 t3_yuoabr in singularity
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwbk42s wrote
Reply to comment by Nicokroox in AI Drew This Gorgeous Comic Series, But You'd Never Know It by rpaul9578
I don’t think it’s necessarily narcissism problem for us. It is just an existential problem. As a human, becoming irrelevant not just in certain facets of life, but to the society as a whole and to other individuals is death-like.
BenjaminHamnett t1_iwbrfqc wrote
This just means people who didn’t master the craft get a say in story telling (programming) also. It’s actually more Democratic. This reminds me of pearl clutching marginal professional writers being displaced by the horde of amateur writers who don’t make money but get to tell their stories now through self publishing.
What if tshirt designs could only be made by people who learned silkscreening or pictures could only be taken by people who studied cinematography and film developing etc
People are mad they learned a craft to give themselves a platform but now everyone gets a platform
gangstasadvocate t1_iwbtdsc wrote
I mean it’s fine with me I have no qualms just taking drugs all day and fucking off and letting AI do everything better and with less effort and support me. I get that’s not everyone but some of us will be happy
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwc5o1h wrote
Yes, I can imagine that for some, hedonism suffices. There definitely are plenty of people, however, for whom it doesn’t. It sort of digs into the question of what a good and meaningful human life is, and that’s the kind of question that we haven’t properly managed fo settle for the longest time. This is tricky.
gangstasadvocate t1_iwc5ufk wrote
Indeed. Glad to be hedonistic sufficient if it comes to that for me at least. Don’t know what to tell you if not, try to augment yourself with it and work with it even if it’s better than you?
blueSGL t1_iwcru4f wrote
Look at hobbies, they are done because people enjoy the activity and fruits of their labor, normally these activities go up against 'professionals' doing the same thing and don't produce as good results but people still enjoy them and do them anyway.
With a lot of hobbies it's Money goes in > Enjoyment comes out. not Time goes in > Money comes out.
Why won't post scarcity just be everyone finding those activities and doing them?
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwctw6r wrote
That very well might be the case. It’s difficult for me to assess post-scarcity scenarios, not least because, I imagine, the end of necessary labour has significant ripple effects in other facets of life. There is, however, a certain sense of finality to (at least in my imagination) this post-scarcity world, that does not quite sit well with me.
blueSGL t1_iwd2fdu wrote
We are already in a society where you don't know the names of the vast majority of people involved with anything you have sitting around you right now, who designed your chair or desk or monitor, what are the names of the people that picked or processed the food you are going to eat this evening.
Is there some sort of additional worth that part of the process was done by human hands instead automated by machinery?
There seems to be a weird fetishization of hardship that some people have where it needs to exist in order for people to be able to enjoy themselves, they need enjoyment as a break from the drudgery of modern life and if it was given to them all the time it would not be as special.
That I feel shows a lack of imagination. In a world where you can do whatever you want you can take up multiple hobbies, get tired of doing X you can do Y, or Z or A or, AXX or whatever. A lifetime of activities you choose that are rich in challenge and differences.
Emory_C t1_iwenqsl wrote
>Why won't post scarcity just be everyone finding those activities and doing them?
Because there won't be post-scarcity. There's no indication AI like this will usher in a post-scarcity world. So, what we'll see is redundant humans with no purpose. We've already seen what a society with lots of purposeless people looks like in other parts of the world. Violence almost always follows.
blueSGL t1_iwerajz wrote
>So, what we'll see is redundant humans with no purpose
this has been covered repeatedly on here, If a % of the work force each year gets replaced by AI (either by augmenting so supply outstrips demand or flat out replacing) UBI or a similar scheme will be forced to be enacted by every government to prevent the economy collapsing and wide scale riots.
There is no reason to produce products and run services via automation if there is no longer a large enough consumer base to buy them so entire business sectors will lobby for UBI
Emory_C t1_iwfk4aj wrote
There is zero evidence that anything like “UBI” For the entire population will work, or will lead to anything other than people living at a subsistence level.
blueSGL t1_iwfp1u3 wrote
again, it would have to work, the current economic system is designed around a certain percentage of the population being able to afford goods and services. Start removing a chunk of that each year and there won't be any choice, there is not suddenly going to be more jobs to hoover those people up.
Having a lot of intelligent former workers unable to pay bills and willing to fight for a common cause is a dangerous mix, anyone who is a student of history can tell you how quickly such a thing can go bad and governments (esp ones that likely have much better AI modeling) will decide to pay people a basic income than deal with the alternative.
There will be pressure to do this both from the newly unemployed and the companies with shrinking bottom lines. Whatever solution is conceived would need to satisfies both. That may be UBI or a similar scheme. A correction of this sort would be the only option to avoid major disruption to the capitalist system. Something that would be inevitable without intervention.
Emory_C t1_iwfua4b wrote
Again, UBI will only support people at a subsistence level. What you're suggesting is basically servitude to the state.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments