LogFAQs > #979374350

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Now the people who always said stuff like that have realized they can probably be replaced as well, and it terrifies them. And I can't find it in myself to give a single solitary s***.

"Some people in this field didn't have sympathy for workers that were made obsolete by technological advancements, so now I don't have sympathy for anyone in this field being made obsolete by technological advancements!"

Among all the Okay, boomer posts you've made, this might just be the Okay, boomerest.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If computers can create better works of art than humans can, then I'd rather have them do it.

The issue is not creating *better* works. It's creating *cheaper* ones. No publishers or producers are jumping on the AI bandwagon because they think it'll make content better, just that they can cut down on the costs of making it and churn more out.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It can't be any more soulless than a lot of the content we've been getting for years now anyway.

If you can't find soulful content to consume, you really only have yourself to blame, and if you think paint-by-numbers, algorithmically generated mainstream content can't sink any deeper, you're in for a surprise. Notably, AI taking over will mean there will be much more of it. If you thought Disney was beating Star Wars and Marvel to death now, just imagine how bad it'll be when production no longer involves scheduling multiple different people and places and they can churn out a new series in a matter of hours.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"Lost your job, better learn to program then!"

As much as that's dismissive and condescending and not really helpful, it has at least been somewhat valid advice. Jobs have been rendered obsolete by technological advances since the dawn of time. It sucks for those left behind, but it's largely inevitable and the only way to really deal with it is to learn new skills that let you work within fields that still exist. Whatever jobs have been lost, the job market has still seen net growth. The skillsets needed to take advantage of those opportunities have just evolved.

That's no longer the case, though. This is the endgame. Without serious active efforts to stifle automation, there isn't a single field that's going to be safe for more than another 20-30 years, and the advent of AI that can replace human creativity is the turning point for that. The limiting factor for what can be automated is "what new automation can people come up with?", but when the automated systems themselves can come up with new automation, there are no more limits. A lot of the outcry around AI art has been a moral objection to the idea of replacing the jobs people actually want to do (which has been a big part of the smugness you're uppity about: It's generally easier to understand somebody liking being an artist than it is to understand somebody liking being a phone operator or assembly line worker), but it goes deeper than that: If AI can gather and apply the information needed to create art, it can gather and apply the information needed to create anything. It's only a matter of time.

Quite simply, there aren't any new fields to go into that can replace the ones being made obsolete. Learning new skills to adapt to an evolving job market is no longer a viable solution, and that's a problem that's only going to be solved with UBI as a stopgap measure until we get to 100% automation and can enter a post-labour robo-communist utopia with no need for money.