this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
497 points (86.9% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
2539 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why should we stifle technological progress so people can still do jobs that can be done with a machine?
If they still want to create art, nobody is stopping them. If they want to get paid, then they need to do something useful for society.
Nobody's calling to stifle technology or progress here. We could develop AI to do anything. The question is what should that be?
There's a distinction to be drawn between 'things that are profitable to do and thus there isn't any shortage of' and 'things that aren't profitable and so there's a shortage of it' here. Today, the de facto measure of 'is it useful for society?' seems to be the former, and that doesn't mean what's useful for society, it's what's usefuI for people that have money to burn.
Fundamentally, there isn't a shortage of art, or copy writers, or software developers, or the things they do- what there is, that AI promises to change, is the inconvenient need to deal with (and pay) artisans or laborers to do it. If the alternative is for AI vendors to be paid instead of working people, is it really the public interest we're talking about, or the interests of corporate management that would rather pocket the difference in cost between paying labor vs. AI?
🧠🤸