cyrano@piefed.social to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 20 hours agoA cartoonist's review of AI art, by Matthew Inmantheoatmeal.comexternal-linkmessage-square72fedilinkarrow-up1416arrow-down112
arrow-up1404arrow-down1external-linkA cartoonist's review of AI art, by Matthew Inmantheoatmeal.comcyrano@piefed.social to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 20 hours agomessage-square72fedilink
minus-squareJohanno@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down2·15 hours agoI know that art is an art of it’s own and a way to express human creativity. However people also complained once the loom was invented. It took lots of jobs. The job argument is usually a stupid one. The lack of creativity and quality is of course a much better argument against AI art.
minus-squareA_norny_mousse@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down4·15 hours ago The job argument is usually a stupid one. The what? It’s the only one that objectively makes sense.
minus-squareJohanno@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·14 hours agoOk imagine this: You are an construction worker. The job is hard but the pay is okay. Now robots replace your job slowly. They are cheaper and more accurate. You can now: Complain about the robots stealing your job Be happy that you don’t have to do the hard work anymore. Many people will go for 1. But the actual issue is that the social security net isn’t existent or so weak that no job means no food. That is not the fault of technology though. Remember that when you vote and when politicians want to cut costs by reducing payments for the unemployed.
minus-squaresem@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down3·13 hours agoOption 2 is soulless. Option 3. Destroy the capitalists owned robots and bring the robots under the control of the working class.
minus-squareFishFace@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·12 hours agoOption 3 still ends up with robots and no-one doing the jobs that the robots replaced.
minus-squaresem@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·24 minutes agoRobots aren’t the problem.
minus-squareJohanno@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·11 hours agoOption 3 would be a weird way of communism. Which still enforces my point. The reason why you fear for job safety is not the fault of technology.
minus-squaresem@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·24 minutes agoOption 3 is also what the historical Luddites wanted. They liked technology when it benefitted them, not when it was used to exploit them.
I know that art is an art of it’s own and a way to express human creativity.
However people also complained once the loom was invented. It took lots of jobs.
The job argument is usually a stupid one.
The lack of creativity and quality is of course a much better argument against AI art.
The what? It’s the only one that objectively makes sense.
Ok imagine this:
You are an construction worker. The job is hard but the pay is okay.
Now robots replace your job slowly. They are cheaper and more accurate.
You can now:
Complain about the robots stealing your job
Be happy that you don’t have to do the hard work anymore.
Many people will go for 1. But the actual issue is that the social security net isn’t existent or so weak that no job means no food.
That is not the fault of technology though.
Remember that when you vote and when politicians want to cut costs by reducing payments for the unemployed.
Option 2 is soulless.
Option 3. Destroy the capitalists owned robots and bring the robots under the control of the working class.
Option 3 still ends up with robots and no-one doing the jobs that the robots replaced.
Robots aren’t the problem.
Option 3 would be a weird way of communism. Which still enforces my point. The reason why you fear for job safety is not the fault of technology.
Option 3 is also what the historical Luddites wanted. They liked technology when it benefitted them, not when it was used to exploit them.