Well okay, I shouldn't have said that nobody cares. But for the most part, the concept of "copying" each others styles is generally not considered an important or serious discourse within artistic communities. The vast majority of artists want to learn from and teach one another. The ones who aggressively try to go after people for copying them are typically regarded as assholes.

You're right, but progress won't stop so the only thing the detractors are doing is making themselves (and everybody else) miserable. If these people are so sure they're being stolen from then it's surprising how none of them have attempted to take AI companies to court. I think the first major trial related to this issue is going to be a big wakeup call for people who are confident their work has been stolen somehow.

Human artists copy each other's style all the time and nobody ever cared about that. It's only when a computer does it that everyone gets pissed.

The claim that their art is being stolen is based on misconceptions about how AI works. I also think they are prematurely panicking about human art being devalued when AI is still not capable of seriously competing with human artists and probably wont be for at least a few years, if not longer.

Ultimately their complaints should be directed at our economic system, and not the technology itself.

Points 1 and 2 need a bit more detail than hand waving away the entire notion of hijacking global military assets via "hacking." Nuclear weapons, in particular, use very analog and air-gapped security systems.

The fact that they have to apologize for announcing a new feature is ridiculous. However, their customer base happens to overlap the most with the people who are whining about how image generators are somehow unfair to them, so I guess it's not surprising.

My belief is that the human factor will be the bottleneck to the adoption of disruptive technologies as we see AI progress. I think its probable that AGI will be capable of replacing humans in just about every industry, and yet there will still be many humans working in those same industries for years to come. This is because the growth rate of the economy will start to become very high, and investors who still have an old fashioned way of thinking will continue to start and run human-powered businesses. Look at the way companies are run today, they are sufficiently funded to spend years developing prototypes that may never be feasible in the market. Twice-yearly power point presentations are enough to convince investors and executives to continue paying all of their employees even if they're developing something that is obviously worthless. Accelerating growth will make it even easier for investors to justify throwing money at startups, and big companies which do integrate AI into their workflow will have all kinds of extra money to reinvest in their own workforce. In a way this might even be necessary as it will be very hard to precisely time when a human job can be replaced with an AI or a robot. Two years too early, and you wasted all your money. Two years too late, and the market has already been captured. But it might turn out that wasting money for 2 years is more worthwhile than never getting a chance at all.

Just look at how much money Meta has wasted on the Metaverse. This is the level of miscalculation made by a company that was originally a pioneer in social media.

Are you really on the singularity subreddit talking about needing more human labor in the economy when most of the people here believe we're going to have AGI in less than 10 years? Anyways, this wouldn't even be a problem today if first world countries were willing to accept more immigrants from places with higher birth rates and lower economic opportunity, but racists are gonna do their thing I guess.

>I still can't ask my computer to do anything in free form unless it has been specifically programmed to do it: "find the fastest public transport route from place A to place B, but disregard all busses unless they cut down the transit time by more then 20 minutes".

This feels a bit like goalpost moving as the basic feature did become popularized in the past 10 years, but the complexity is limited. You can certainly ask most smart devices for the fastest route from A to B and get it. Most people use digital assistants that take plain-text voice queries, like Alexa or Google. At my home we use it often to set timers or ask questions when cooking, like "what temperature should ground beef be cooked to" or others and it usually just works.

It's also somewhat more difficult to use AI for consumer-focused products compared to industry-focused products. AI systems like AlphaFold are currently in the background creating significant speedups in biological research and development. It is also known that multiple large hardware companies are also using AI to accelerate computer chip design.

>Space travel (do I even need to explain this one?)

The first successful Falcon 9 landing was at the end of 2015. Since then there have been individual Falcon 9 boosters which have been reused 14 times. Space tourism is slowly becoming a thing with Blue Origin's New Shephard having completed six crewed flights, the first one being in July 2021.

Talking about things like self-driving, nuclear fusion and androids is sort of a red herring. Just because a given task is more difficult than expected, is not evidence that we've reached a plateau. It just means the thing was harder than originally thought. There are various futuristic technologies which have come to market and started to mature. Electric vehicles being a big and obvious one, now with every major automaker producing at least one mainstream EV and having concrete plans to do many more (and in some cases convert their entire fleets to electric).

If you try to do everything by yourself from scratch then you are destined to stretch yourself too thin and fail. It's about specialization. Tesla was highly specialized in the manufacture of electric vehicles and batteries. They eventually branched into solar, which mostly didn't go so well. Now they're branching into chip design, AI, and robotics all at the same time with no prior advantage, and at the cost of their EV business which is not receiving any investment from their giant piles of money to fix quality control and service problems that have plagued them for years.

I'm pessimistic about Optimus because Tesla is spending money on things outside of its expertise when its core business is failing. The cybertruck is years behind schedule, and the semi cant be considered anything but vaporware at this point.

"Oh wow Tesla dojo, so fast." Well guess what, it's also incredibly expensive to design your own computer chips and have them fabricated when you could just buy Nvidia A100s like every other AI development company in industry. Similar issue with their autopilot hardware. Why go through the trouble of designing an entire circuit board and chipset when you can just use a GPU, like everybody else? There is absolutely no guarantee that any of these computer chips will be powerful enough when we finally understand what the level of AI that they aspire to will actually require, in terms of compute. That's why research is still done using general purpose hardware.

People have this attitude of, "oh, Optimus will eventually get there." And maybe it will after years of development. Is that going to happen before Tesla's ponzi scheme stock craters into the ground after neglecting their actual customers for years on end?