Remember how he also only worked 3 days a week, and had job security even though he was fired every episode?

George Jetson had a very good union.

The Jetsons were the 1% and the Flintstones were the rest.

They were the Elysium space station people

There were no people down there. It was just a flooded planet

Capitalism cannot ever be sufficiently checked while remaining Capitalism. Wage Labor and Capital does a good job of explaining why.

Agree. Like. Thumbs up.

I agree. Thoughts?

Let me make it clear first. Generative AI is not art. Prompt engineering is not a real job.

AI is just a tool. It is still waiting for an artist to use it to create art, just as a Photography or Photoshop image is not an art by itself.

But… training with images is the same as humans learning how to draw, though… I know it’s boring but what you said is boring too. We could fall back to the same conversation over and over because you start with the same conversation again and again.

FUCK AI, and also FUCK PEOPLE AGAINST AI, Good thing I hate everyone!

You cannot be an apologist unless there is a credible accusation to defend against.

Disagreeing with people that cannot coherently decide why they are upset is a good thing.

As for your comment, I agree that using art to train AI and then selling the result is a problem. Our legal framework needs to catch up on that. Personally, I do not see why it would not be copyright violation. That is clearly what it would be if a human did the exact same thing. A tool directed by a human does not seem so different from that. In my reading of copyright law, this misuse of AI may already be illegal.

We just need a few court cases to sort that out.

“I want the leisure time required to create art, instead of being fucking burned out from working multiple jobs and spending all my available free time doing chores.”

So, fair enough. Does this have anything whatsoever to do with AI? It really waters down your other point ( addressed above ).

If you are trying to agree with the OP concerning “laundry and dishes”, please think about your position. Those are two of the best examples for how technology has reduced time spent and effort expended on menial chores. I struggle to think of better ones. They also seem like prime candidates to be improved by adding AI to our existing mechanical devices.

What could the actual complaint be here? At worst, you can assume that AI will not help you with laundry and dishes. Any less extreme position will be that it probably will. The same can be said for any other menial task I can think of in my day-to-day life.

Sorry to be a rationality apologist but I am not going to line-up against totally misdirected outrage. Being mad does not make you right.

AI apologists

Im not an “AI apologist” because theres nothing to apologise for.

Much like im not an “automatic loom apologist” or a “steam engine apologist”

I want to be able to create all the things Ive dreamed of creating my.whole life without spending 4-8 years in fucking art school, saddling myself in debt for a skill that was virtually impossible to make a living off of. and that was BEFORE ai. AI has enabled me to create things that would have been fucking.impossible for me to.create on my own and and absurdly.expensive to have commissioned. Its allowed me to create things that would be literally.impossible without it.

I had ideas. I just couldn’t afford to make it real. With ai I’ve been able to.

I never would have paid an artist to do what I’ve been able to done for myself. Even if I could have afforded it.

Ai may commodotize creativity but it democratizes art.

Jeans Pierre can still build a lifesized model.of Donald trump.out of tampons and I get an to cover my walls with viking chicks with huge fits that look like they’re painted by van Gogh, and oil paintings of my face instead of whoever the model.was on history’s greatest works.of art.

If you’re an artist pissed off about ai taking your money: you probably wouldn’t have made much anyway. Being an artist was always a reckless gamble.

Don’t be so bitter dude. Go out and be the change you want to see.

Calling AI generated pictures “art” is insulting to most artists. I agree though, all this hype is driven by short-sighted capitalism

Capitalism is the reason why AI doing art is a problem.

Keep talking like that and they’re going to take your asshole certificate away.

I like washing my dishes and do the laundry (but not washing clothes by hand, that we left for good). I feel like some manual labor each day leaves a breathing room for my mind when I don’t scroll or consume content or work with my mind exhausted and occupied. It reminds me of how Don Carleone liked his garden work in the book. Just a simple labor with evident results.

I think the point is that folks of a certain age have seen time and again how instead of tech advances “making our lives easier” they are instead used to increase expectations of “productivity”. Here, the path we’re on doesn’t lead to more time to create art (or to choose what “simple labor” you might find fulfilling as a hobby), it leads to expectations to produce more for the 1% with the same amount of time we had before, or excuses about how an overworked department doesn’t need to be expanded since there’s AI now, or etc etc.

“AI” is just the new sales buzzword to replace “smart” devices since they probably finally realized that the shit they were pushing out wasn’t all that smart just because it required an app to function.

deleted by creator

Yes like NFTs, for example. /s

Anyone who believes that anyone here is trying to suggest that art/writing is the only thing AI is used for, has a myopic understanding of how nuanced conversation works.

I don’t think artists/writers care about what else AI is being used for when they are losing their livelihood to a kid with a computer.

but it is true that big tech companies are pouring disproportionately large sums of money into AI that seems like it is doing creative stuff so that they can ride the AI hype wave.

This strawman argument

Ironic coming from your strawman argument that people believe that is the only thing AI is used for, when literally noone, including the OOP, has claimed anything like that.

I think it’s worth mentioning that Algorithms have been running Wall Street as well. It’s seem very possible we could have an entirely machine run world where little has to do with choice. Which could be nice or bad. or both.

Alright then, here’s what I think about your sources. A lot of these seem like technologies that won’t really help the plain folk. I’m sorry if this is a bit long, but I made sure to put time into this because I find it very important.

Source 1: I’m not sure if this type of tech, that being neural networks “trained” on previous data, is actually going to help scientists find out what supernovae explosions are like. This is simply a composition of all the explosions the data is trained on. A better process is this designing of an airplane wing. This uses algorithms with vars that actually represent physical variables, like lift and friction, to find the best airplane wing design, instead of feeding a neural network airplane wing designs that work. It ended up performing a bit better than expected because of real-world variables.

Source 2: The problem this AI is trying to solve is brought on by hospitals purposefully laying off staff. However, I really like this quote.

The AI, dubbed MyEleanor, isn’t designed to replace human navigators, Moadel-Robblee explained. “She” calls patients who didn’t show up or canceled their colonoscopy appointments. If they pick up, she has two primary directives: transfer them over to a human navigator and, if the patient consents, guide them through a brief survey on why they missed their appointment. “Our virtual navigator, she doesn’t sleep. So she can call earlier, later, or on different days. The navigators that are human are invaluable. They have the human touch. We can’t replace them, but we can supplement,” Moadel-Robblee said.

I think that this is technically a good thing, but it’s very small compared to the jobs lost from AI.

Source 3: First off, three people already beat this robot to the punch.

The first dishwasher to be granted a patent was invented in 1850 by Joel Houghton. It was a wooden box that used a hand-turned wheel to splash water on dirty dishes, and it had scrubbers. Ten years later, inventor L.A. Alexander improved on Houghton’s machine by adding a “geared mechanism that allowed the user to spin racked dishes through a tub of water,” according to an entry on reference website ThoughtCo. But the person we have to thank for the modern-day dishwasher is Josephine Cochran (sometimes spelled Cochrane). Her machine was the first to use water pressure instead of scrubbers to clean dishes—which made it more efficient than Houghton’s or Alexander’s versions.

After that, the article is almost nothing like you described. The reporter is going off from a promotional video by people clearly trying to bedazzle investors. Then, the article itself states that “[i]t’s unlikely that Figure 01 is using ChatGPT itself”, and ruminates on advancements that would only happen “[s]hould everything in the video work as claimed”. It’s just AI hype.

Overall, this technology is not “benefiting humanity”. I like how open you are about things, tho.

Edit: I made sure that my statements were not in accidentally in a quote.

Isn’t it more relevant to point out, that washing machines are using machine learning algorithms for years?

I just can’t fold laundry. Everything else I’m fine.

leave me alone and let me try to learn how to play a dobro

There are roughly two possible outcomes of automation in general:

• The utopical one is that as the robots, AI and so on, do more and more of the work, people in general get more free time: i.e. the productivity gains of automation are distributed and benefit people in general.
• The dystopical one is that automation just leads to fewer jobs and more people suffering because they can’t afford a roof over their heads or food on their plates: i.e. the productivity gains of automation are kept by the people who own most assets, including the machines that do the automation, hence most people will just lose their livelihoods

For all we’ve seen so far, in the current political and economic system we have - were the gains of work (be it automated or not) mainly end in the hands of asset owners (and, remember asset ownership, which is a curve that pretty much follows the wealth one, is incredibly unequal) - we’re well on the dystopia track.

I don’t think this is at all something that can be solved from the side of Technology, nor do I think that the consequences of natural improvement in automation technology being dystopia are the responsability of the Techies, though I would not at all be surprised if the Techies are, along with other groups (for example, immigrants), be made scapegoats by the people who made automation productivity increases lead to dystopia rather than utopia.

A roboticist working in AI and robot research.

Thank you for representing your field better than the other guy in this discussion. This gives me some hope that there are folks involved who can see the forest for the trees.

Affordable robots and AI could either enhance our lives or lead to unemployment and misery.

See also Mashall Brain’s “Manna”

Yes but the artbro luddites will not read this. They are narcissists who are upset that some kid with a computer in Argentina can now generate anime titties instead of paying $300 for them to draw it and they are fighting the realization of how bullshit their industry was from the get-go

Not to mention if it does happen and it does make it to consumers these robots will be insanely expensive to make and maintain. People going “why doesn’t AI just work on physical labor?!” can’t seem to understand that software is a million times easier and cheaper to make

It’s not like scientists woke up one day and said DAMN we need to make robots take away fun jobs ans nothing else. It’s just where machine learning took us.

Scrub boards, no, at least not in developed countries, if people wash by hand then because the fabric is fragile. Clotheslines, very much yes. Probably going to change with condensing wash-dryers becoming more common: Don’t use hot air so you don’t have to worry so much about the fabric, don’t use up additional space.

The American perspective on that kind of stuff is seriously uncommon, somehow not having a dryer is a sign of poverty but having a detachable shower head and duvet covers is unimaginable luxury.

Yeah I think she could’ve used some better examples for things that aren’t yet automated. Something like taxes, or fighting with your insurance.

They’ve tackled part of the process. You still need to clear the table yourself, get rid of the large solid food scraps and saturated fats, load/empty the dishwasher. You then have things that need scrubbing, or material that can’t handle heat well, and those need to be cleaned manually.

I have a dishwasher, but find that I rarely use it because the time it saves is negligible compared to manual washing. The only time it’s helpful is after something like a dinner party where there are a lot more dishes than usual so space is the limiting factor.

I still wash dishes by hand but it’s mostly because my washer isn’t that great and I just haven’t bothered replacing it.

My in-laws live in the developing world so they air dry their clothing.

It makes media. And it makes it very quickly and cheaply. Who cares if it’s any good? We can substitute quality for quantity when we no longer have to even pretend to cover cost of living of artists.

Then, once we no longer need all these surplus humans, we can put AI to its real job. See: Israeli’s Lavender Program

For profit!

My dishwasher has remote start functionality if I download the app. But what I really need is remote-load functionality.

Dishwasher requires less labour yes. But would be nice with zero labour though.

There are plenty of places without a dishwasher, I just moved from an apartment that didn’t have one. Hand washing was a very time consuming chore and we only barely escaped the poverty trap so buying one was out of the question, and if we did, it would be a small portable one because it was just an apartment. I’m not adding value for free to the landlord charging double what would have been barely reasonable in a non-enshittified society.

AI tools to create their »own« art

Yes but you see the billionaires who own everything want the AI to make all the art and writing so they don’t have to pay you and so they can keep all the money they (not you) make off of art and writing.