AIs gunning for our precious freelancers

[rotting bones]

This is, you don't need to starve to be productive outside of employment, and being employed does not preclude being productive in your spare time ─ e.g. I develop software (e.g. zeptoforth) purely for the enjoyment of it, and simultaneously am paid to develop software (e.g. image reconstruction software for MR imaging). And I am by no means unique in this.

Of course not, but isn't this normalizing talent? What about fans of relaxation who can't be productive all the time?

[malloc]

BTW, the idea that starving artists are a thing of the past is insane to me. Maybe you should refresh your education in sociology by watching the Rent musical.

The characters in "Rent" didn't die from overexerting themselves at art, though. Automating art and leaving them with nothing would not have improved their situation. Perhaps you should ask actual artists what economic problems they face instead of assuming that art is some agonizing drudgery they need removed. None of the artists I have met look forward to AI driving them out of their field.

Just out of curiosity, what fields of employment do you believe should remain with humans rather than being automated?

[rotting bones]

The characters in "Rent" didn't die from overexerting themselves at art, though. Automating art and leaving them with nothing would not have improved their situation.

The work that needs to be done to support artists is non-artistic. If you automate the non-artistic jobs, then no one needs to exert themselves to support artists. Even artists want assistants to help them complete their work. The problem is that in the market, machines price out people. Without market fundamentalism, this doesn't need to happen.

Perhaps you should ask actual artists what economic problems they face instead of assuming that art is some agonizing drudgery they need removed. None of the artists I have met look forward to AI driving them out of their field.

People who haven't made it big in art yet like alynnidalar and I do support it. It's not my fault that Americans associate the workers' movement with Heideggerian left-Nazism.

Just out of curiosity, what fields of employment do you believe should remain with humans rather than being automated?

All employment should remain with humans, even fully automated jobs. Machines can't hold jobs. They are tools.

[malloc]

People who haven't made it big in art yet like alynnidalar and I do support it. It's not my fault that Americans associate the workers' movement with Heideggerian left-Nazism.

Do you really think people who value the arts and believe humanity rather than machines should design and create our culture are Nazis or are you merely resorting to imprecise hyperbole?

All employment should remain with humans, even fully automated jobs. Machines can't hold jobs. They are tools.

Intelligent machines capable of writing novels and conducting scientific research and so forth are fundamentally different than mere tools. They are making decisions on their own according to their own internal logic rather than following the decisions of human operators verbatim. When the machines make all the decisions about a particular activity for reasons only they know and understand, they control that activity for all practical purposes. (Let us put aside the metaphysical question of whether these machines are truly conscious of their actions.)

Again, what exactly should humans be doing in the economy once machines have taken over all the interesting jobs?

[rotting bones]

Do you really think people who value the arts and believe humanity rather than machines should design and create our culture are Nazis or are you merely resorting to imprecise hyperbole?

It's more precise than the average "academic" terminology. Trust me, the theory of distrusting tech is based on Heideggerian nostalgia, the same nostalgia for rural Germany that led many to support pointless genocide. I believe I posted this here before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wCY9SqyVoo

Intelligent machines capable of writing novels and conducting scientific research and so forth are fundamentally different than mere tools. They are making decisions on their own according to their own internal logic rather than following the decisions of human operators verbatim. When the machines make all the decisions about a particular activity for reasons only they know and understand, they control that activity for all practical purposes. (Let us put aside the metaphysical question of whether these machines are truly conscious of their actions.)

Again, what exactly should humans be doing in the economy once machines have taken over all the interesting jobs?

There is no "economy", only particles interacting in space. "Economy!!!1" is a noise murder monsters make when they have a rage boner and are getting ready to fuck us all to death.*

Humans should get jobs to do things. It should be up to them what tools they use to do the job. The government should do whatever it takes to make this happen.

*It occurs to me that this claim deserves a citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKGaXB4AyWs

[Travis B.]

This is, you don't need to starve to be productive outside of employment, and being employed does not preclude being productive in your spare time ─ e.g. I develop software (e.g. zeptoforth) purely for the enjoyment of it, and simultaneously am paid to develop software (e.g. image reconstruction software for MR imaging). And I am by no means unique in this.

Of course not, but isn't this normalizing talent? What about fans of relaxation who can't be productive all the time?

Just because you are productive outside of work does not mean that you have to be constantly productive outside of work. Personally, I tend to work in spurts where I either become engrossed in developing some new feature or fixing some bug, followed by my releasing a new version of my software. At other times I have lulls where I am rather satisfied with the state of my software and do not feel like I have to add to it. And yes, I do sometimes procrastinate, e.g. I have been telling myself I should finish my IPv6 version of my IP stack, zeptoIP, but I have been putting off finishing it. (And even when I am rather busy I do take time out to do things such as watch foreign murder mysteries, which I am a fan of.)

[malloc]

It's more precise than the average "academic" terminology. Trust me, the theory of distrusting tech is based on Heideggerian nostalgia, the same nostalgia for rural Germany that led many to support pointless genocide. I believe I posted this here before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wCY9SqyVoo

There have been many critiques of technology, whether in whole or part, over the centuries from numerous distinct perspectives. Many of them like the Luddites predate Heidegger by many years while others like the Dakota Access Pipeline protests reflect cultures quite distinct from mid-century German fascism. The technology critics* I have met almost never cite Heidegger or rural nostalgia as their reason for distrusting technology. People like that certainly exist, such as the cottagecore scene, but they hardly comprise the majority let alone totality of tech criticism.

Perhaps you should look into the historical ties between computer technology and the military. The first full-fledged computer ENIAC was developed for artillery ballistics and nuclear weapons research for instance. For that matter, consider that William Shockley, inventor of the transistor on which all modern computing depends, was also an infamous racist and eugenics advocate. I have already highlighted the countless reactionaries who populate the tech industry these days. You rush to condemn the entire concept of critiquing technology over one Nazi while ignoring the multitude of warmongers, racists, fascists, and plutocrats that have filled the tech industry since its inception.

Humans should get jobs to do things. It should be up to them what tools they use to do the job. The government should do whatever it takes to make this happen.

Then stick to creating tools rather than blackbox entities with human-level intelligence and decision making autonomy. Leave the thinking and creating to humans and let machines take care of mindless drudgery. That was always the pitch of automation before you AI researchers came along and decided the human mind needed replacing.

*In fact, many such critics are also staunch urbanists who argue that cars have undermined cities in favor of quasi-rural suburbia.

[Ares Land]

Do you really think people who value the arts and believe humanity rather than machines should design and create our culture are Nazis or are you merely resorting to imprecise hyperbole?

It's more precise than the average "academic" terminology. Trust me, the theory of distrusting tech is based on Heideggerian nostalgia, the same nostalgia for rural Germany that led many to support pointless genocide. I believe I posted this here before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wCY9SqyVoo

A beautiful demonstration of Godwin's Law.

Myself, I think we should trust tech when it's demonstrably useful, and new (or old, for that matter) technology isn't necessarily a good thing. I don't believe this makes me a Nazi; it doesn't even make me a Luddite.

I'm personally very dubious of the use of AI as applied to the arts. First, it doesn't make very good art (at best the results are impressive but ultimately unoriginal). Second, artists are already struggling enough as it is -- and not because they're in need of labor saving devices.

[Raphael]

I don't think being generally critical of technology makes you a Nazi, but I still fundamentally disagree with general hostility towards technology. I think that the technological developments of the last 300 years have, all in all, been great for humankind. I wouldn't want to live in a world where almost everyone has to be a feudal peasant or peasant's wife. I think that anti-technology people, whatever about their relationship with Nazis, are often clueless about many things - technology itself, life in general, history, etc. I think that, often, they don't really realize just how many things they would have to do without if they'd really get the world they say they want.

[rotting bones]

Just because you are productive outside of work does not mean that you have to be constantly productive outside of work. Personally, I tend to work in spurts where I either become engrossed in developing some new feature or fixing some bug, followed by my releasing a new version of my software. At other times I have lulls where I am rather satisfied with the state of my software and do not feel like I have to add to it. And yes, I do sometimes procrastinate, e.g. I have been telling myself I should finish my IPv6 version of my IP stack, zeptoIP, but I have been putting off finishing it. (And even when I am rather busy I do take time out to do things such as watch foreign murder mysteries, which I am a fan of.)

This is what I meant by being productive all the time. Not everyone can do it.

One major hurdle is to find projects that both excite you and you have the skills to work on. We get so many cranks because skills are often lacking. The self-critical faculty required to identify approaches as unscientific tends to dampens people's enthusiasm to work on anything at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r1ssg1LIt4

[rotting bones]

There have been many critiques of technology, whether in whole or part, over the centuries from numerous distinct perspectives. Many of them like the Luddites predate Heidegger by many years while others like the Dakota Access Pipeline protests reflect cultures quite distinct from mid-century German fascism. The technology critics* I have met almost never cite Heidegger or rural nostalgia as their reason for distrusting technology. People like that certainly exist, such as the cottagecore scene, but they hardly comprise the majority let alone totality of tech criticism.

Contemporary social theory is not derived from Luddites. It is, however, strongly influenced by Heidegger. Almost every social theorist who describes themselves as a "Marxist" these days is a Heideggerian in practice.

Perhaps you should look into the historical ties between computer technology and the military. The first full-fledged computer ENIAC was developed for artillery ballistics and nuclear weapons research for instance. For that matter, consider that William Shockley, inventor of the transistor on which all modern computing depends, was also an infamous racist and eugenics advocate. I have already highlighted the countless reactionaries who populate the tech industry these days. You rush to condemn the entire concept of critiquing technology over one Nazi while ignoring the multitude of warmongers, racists, fascists, and plutocrats that have filled the tech industry since its inception.

I hope you realize how many such people there are across all essential industries. Alan Turing worked for the military out of anti-fascist motives.

Then stick to creating tools rather than blackbox entities with human-level intelligence and decision making autonomy. Leave the thinking and creating to humans and let machines take care of mindless drudgery. That was always the pitch of automation before you AI researchers came along and decided the human mind needed replacing.

*In fact, many such critics are also staunch urbanists who argue that cars have undermined cities in favor of quasi-rural suburbia.

All non-sentient machines are tools.

[rotting bones]

A beautiful demonstration of Godwin's Law.

The uneducated teenagers accusing everyone of being Hitler were right. The respected academics publishing reasoned articles were cynical manipulators all along. Basically everyone really is a Nazi in the 21st century. The most popular elected leader is still Modi.

Second, artists are already struggling enough as it is

The only factor that causes AI to increase the struggles of artists is market fundamentalism. Blaming AI instead of the market is homologous to blaming the Jews instead of capitalism.

-- and not because they're in need of labor saving devices.

Notice how this argument implicitly defines "artist" as someone who has already made it big in the art world rather than novices who are still struggling to find their voice. Among the latter, you will find lots of people who are enthusiastic about AI art. It should be up to the worker to decide which tools they find useful. Since the anti-AI argument doesn't define "usefulness" in that sense, I think it's essentially conservative.

[Ares Land]

The uneducated teenagers accusing everyone of being Hitler were right. The respected academics publishing reasoned articles were cynical manipulators all along. Basically everyone really is a Nazi in the 21st century. The most popular elected leader is still Modi.

The only factor that causes AI to increase the struggles of artists is market fundamentalism. Blaming AI instead of the market is homologous to blaming the Jews instead of capitalism.

On a more meta level of discussion:

• Shifting the discussion to Jews and Nazis is great on shock value but Nazism is irrelevant here; the comparison is, besides, in poor taste.
• If your conclusion is literally 'everyone is a Nazi'... It's almost certain there is something wrong with your reasoning.
• Most of the world is capitalistic and market-based in one way or another. Anything can be blamed on capitalism. It's not wrong; but it's not terribly useful either.

-- and not because they're in need of labor saving devices.

Notice how this argument implicitly defines "artist" as someone who has already made it big in the art world rather than novices who are still struggling to find their voice. Among the latter, you will find lots of people who are enthusiastic about AI art. It should be up to the worker to decide which tools they find useful. Since the anti-AI argument doesn't define "usefulness" in that sense, I think it's essentially conservative.

AI art feels derivative; the uncanny touch is interesting but gets old fast. I'd be happy to see or read good examples of AI-assisted art; but I haven't seen any so far.
Also, the problem writers - for instance - have is that books just don't sell that much. AI isn't going to help with that.

[Travis B.]

Just because you are productive outside of work does not mean that you have to be constantly productive outside of work. Personally, I tend to work in spurts where I either become engrossed in developing some new feature or fixing some bug, followed by my releasing a new version of my software. At other times I have lulls where I am rather satisfied with the state of my software and do not feel like I have to add to it. And yes, I do sometimes procrastinate, e.g. I have been telling myself I should finish my IPv6 version of my IP stack, zeptoIP, but I have been putting off finishing it. (And even when I am rather busy I do take time out to do things such as watch foreign murder mysteries, which I am a fan of.)

This is what I meant by being productive all the time. Not everyone can do it.

One major hurdle is to find projects that both excite you and you have the skills to work on. We get so many cranks because skills are often lacking. The self-critical faculty required to identify approaches as unscientific tends to dampens people's enthusiasm to work on anything at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r1ssg1LIt4

I for the longest time actually did very little software development of my own, because I felt very strongly like everything had already been done and there was nothing worth doing left. It was only after I got to the point where I felt that I wanted to do something simply for its own sake, regardless of whether it had been done before or not, before I started really developing my own code again. After that point I developed a few projects such as a genetically-programmed robot combat simulator, an IRC client, a piece of multiprocess middleware, and so on. But it was really when I decided that I would do what I had honestly always wanted to do but had previously seen as unsurmountable, i.e. write a compiler and write an operating system, even if those had been done a million times already by other people, before my own projects really took off. Ultimately this resulted in zeptoforth, which gave me added satisfaction when it started being used by other people, which also gave me something that I had never had before -- a sense that there were people who used and benefited from my work instead of the loneliness of developing things no one else will ever use.

[Raphael]

Ultimately this resulted in zeptoforth, which gave me added satisfaction when it started being used by other people, which also gave me something that I had never had before -- a sense that there were people who used and benefited from my work instead of the loneliness of developing things no one else will ever use.

You never got that feeling through your professional work?

[Travis B.]

Ultimately this resulted in zeptoforth, which gave me added satisfaction when it started being used by other people, which also gave me something that I had never had before -- a sense that there were people who used and benefited from my work instead of the loneliness of developing things no one else will ever use.

You never got that feeling through your professional work?

There are some things that I have enjoyed developing professionally, but the difference is that I am developing it for an employer rather than for its own sake, and even though there may be people who use it, they ultimately are my employer's customers, external or internal, rather than people who directly appreciate and use my own work as such.

[alice]

All non-sentient machines are tools.

Well, someone has to say it: so are many sentient non-machines.

[zompist]

-- and not because they're in need of labor saving devices.

Notice how this argument implicitly defines "artist" as someone who has already made it big in the art world rather than novices who are still struggling to find their voice. Among the latter, you will find lots of people who are enthusiastic about AI art. It should be up to the worker to decide which tools they find useful. Since the anti-AI argument doesn't define "usefulness" in that sense, I think it's essentially conservative.

I think you need to take Remedial Marxism. When you side with $100,000 a year programmers like yourself (and their millionaire techbro owners) and against $5,000 a year struggling artists, or even $50,000 a year illustrators, you are not on the side of the workers, you are on the side of the exploiters.

Just for some base data I looked up median income for several professions. (Quick googling produced numbers all over the map; I ended up using vault.com which says its numbers are medians and come from the Dept. of Labor. Take with more than a spoonful of salt.)

illustrator 49k
food service manager 55k
carpenter - 47k
fashion stylist 51k
journalist 46k
bank teller 30k
paralegal 51k
fast food worker 22k
meatcutter 32k
web developer 74k

No one making $50k has "made it big" and you are being anti-worker and pro-capitalist to insinuate that they have, or that they are "conservative".

It's great that you have a cool job. But you don't speak for artists, not when your own profession is attempting to put them out of work and give the money to techbros.

From previous discussions, your theoretical position is that while capitalism does not sufficiently value artistic work, the solution is a system which does not value it at all. This is not reassuring to artists. (I'm a writer, the one craft where work is not paid at all. You can get paid for sales, and even then, a big fraction of the public thinks that that part is optional. So your attitude is typical, but it sure doesn't sell me on your system.)

Now, there are a lot more people who would like to be artists, than those who can make a living at it. This of course isn't reflected in Dept. of Labor statistics. Destroying the profession does not help those people who would like to make a living at it. People who need small-scale art and can't draw— portraits of their D&D characters, visualizations of their fantasy worlds, very specific fetish porn, whatever— should pay a damn human artist instead of techbros. There are plenty of artists who would will do something for $50 or $300. Using free AI services is exactly like accepting a free dose from your friendly local drug dealer: it is a pretend savings, it is not really free.

AI tools are fun and amazing to play with— I got a chance to do so recently, so I see the attraction. I can't fault an artist who uses these things for 'inspiration' or whatever. I do think there are too many moral problems with actually using AI-generated art in a project, or pretending that it's one's own work.

[Travis B.]

The thing about AI is that in the short term AI will be used to replace said artists, at least until the venture capital runs out and AI is no longer so free after all -- but by that time said artists will be out of work altogether -- and even then those who formerly paid said artists may still be able to buy the services of the AI for less. If struggling novices can make art with AI, so can those who would have bought their art, without having to pay for said artists' labor.

[jcb]

AIs are now being used to plan, script, and run entire events. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

It leaves out the best part! Behold, the depressed oompa loompa:

People who need small-scale art and can't draw— portraits of their D&D characters, visualizations of their fantasy worlds, very specific fetish porn, whatever— should pay a damn human artist instead of techbros. There are plenty of artists who would will do something for $50 or $300. Using free AI services is exactly like accepting a free dose from your friendly local drug dealer: it is a pretend savings, it is not really free.

Zompist, I assume you print your own documents on a printer. Don't you feel bad that you're bypassing the typesetters' union and contributing to its death? ( https://jacobin.com/2017/09/typesetting ... n-printing )

***

I feel like most of the (very real) anxiety over "AI" is not about AI, but is actually about how techbros own AI. Imagine for a moment a different world, where each artist has their own AI trained on their own images and art style, and only they can use it. I think that instead of articles from artists about how AI messes up hands and how it will never be as good as a human artist, we'd get articles from artists about how AI, although imperfect, saves them so much time when they make another panel for their webcomic (or whatever) by producing the general outline for what they need, freeing the artist from drawing the same character or background over and over again (repetetive boilerplate art, essentially). But note that the technology hasn't changed between these two scenarios, only who owns it.

Of course, in American economics at the moment, questioning who owns what (and why) is forbidden, and thus all this anxiety must get misplaced on the technology instead of the owner of the technology, because blaming the latter is not consider a legitimate complaint.