Working less is a great ideal for humanity.
Americans have this thing that their job defines them but we worked less than we did before, let’s keep going.
Comment on OpenAI introduces Sora, its text-to-video AI model
echo64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Would be good if openai could focus on things that are useful to humanity rather than trying to just do what we can do already, but with less jobs.
Wanderer@lemm.ee 8 months ago
lorty@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
Except the gains technology and automation bring are rarely evenly distributed in society. Just compare how productive a worker is today and how much we make compared to 50 years ago.
Wanderer@lemm.ee 8 months ago
We make a lot more. Improvements are good.
You think people should be taxed more, vote for politicians trying to tax rich people more.
echo64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
1 Generally people want to work, people don’t want to be exploited by capitolists for a capitolist society where they barely make rent humans are generally workers. 2. This isn’t working less, this isn’t productivity improvement. This is less humanity in art and all just so employers don’t need to spend money on workers.
Wanderer@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Nothing is stopping anyone working for works sake. Personal I think that’s a waste of time but people are free to do what they want.
Yes it is. It’s the same as the printing press, or the electric switchboard, computers, cars, containerisation, 3d rendering verse drawing. Work used to be done by humans now the labour had been replaced to make something better quality, for a lower price with less workers.
echo64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Removing the artist is not “replacing the labor like the printing press”.
CluckN@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Why pursue any of the arts if they do not benefit humanity?
echo64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Ai generated images are not art.
yggstyle@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yes and no.
Currently you could say that ai is just efficiently guessing what we would want to see from pixel to pixel.
An artist may tune their style to be more similar to the art that they sold before in hopes of repeat buyers.
An AI looks at countless images and seeks out patterns which it refines. It mimics things and duplicates patterns.
An artists spends countless hours absorbed in the art of others to learn styles. Frequently they may mimic other works and iterate off of existing ideas.
Fan art, tracing, compositing - these are all things understood in the art community. If someone makes fan art of someone else’s character does that invalidate their work as art?
AI invokes a reaction because it’s getting “close.” AI is receiving a lot of the same criticism that digital artists got for not using traditional mediums back in that technology’s infancy.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. What defines art? Everything is relative. At present? AI is a tool. A bit unpolished and raw but so was CGI in the movie industry. Look how quickly that evolved.
echo64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
If nature carves a stone to look pretty, that’s not art.
If a human carves a stone to look pretty, that’s art. It has care and detail, it has something about humanity in it as it has a human behind it and everything that shaped them, shaped that stone.
It’s that simple. Ai can not make art no more than the wind can.
BluesF@lemmy.world 8 months ago
AI could well be a tool for creating art in the future but as of yet it is not a tool I have ever seen to create anything I would consider art. Well, certainly not good art. Admittedly, every time I’ve been aware that it’s been used at all it’s because there are obvious AI errors present which make things look shit.
Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Good luck keeping up that attitude as AI is advancing at this pace. You already can’t tell them apart from human created images and and it’ll just keep getting better.
echo64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Art is not about how believable it is. It’s not a gauge of believability that an ai made this or not. There is no Turing test for art.
Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Because they look good enough for the web stories or RP I make
fidodo@lemmy.world 8 months ago
If the natural state of technology is that there aren’t enough jobs to sustain an economy, then our economic system is broken, and trying to preserve obsolete jobs is just preserving the broken status quo that primarily benefits the rich. Over time I’m thinking more and more that instead of trying to prop up an outdated economic system we should just let it fail, and then we have no choice but to rethink it.
echo64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Oh yes yes I’m sure that we will totally rethink our economic systems that’s absolutely what will happen and it will totally result in the utopia you’re dreaming of. I’m sure that will happen I’m sure it’s not just the ultra wealthy noting how they can make even more profit whilst everyone else suffers can’t be that I’m sure the government will do something we all have faith in that we know it’s obvious that will happen
fidodo@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You think pushing the status quo is going to result in change? The sweet spot for the rich is to have everyone struggle while they enrich themselves, but not struggle so hard that it leads to an upheaval. We’ve tried patching up a broken system and it doesn’t fix anything, it just slows the decline. I think an upheaval is the only answer, dunno when we’ll hit the breaking point, but it will happen, it’s inevitable. For the economy to fundamentally change it will require it becoming completely impossible to survive in the existing economy, otherwise nobody would want to risk a fundamental rethink of how things work.
maniacal_gaff@lemmy.world 8 months ago
We already knew how to farm before John Deere; should we have focused away from agricultural industrialization in order to preserve jobs?
echo64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
looks at the immense harm that agricultural industrialization has had on the climate, the environment and society
Apparently yes.