|
|
|
|
|
by philwelch
3035 days ago
|
|
I’ve spent a long time thinking about this, and I actually think that most of the dangers are somewhat overblown and the corrective actions are already in progress. People are already willing to pay a premium for artisanal goods specifically because they are made by a human being, and this provides a growing economic niche for artisans. In and of itself, this isn’t exactly sufficient, since artisans don’t usually make a whole lot of money, but the flip side is that automated goods and services are going to become cheaper and cheaper over time, bringing them within reach. A post-AI economy could easily be an economy of artisans, one where it’s easier to afford the more basic necessities of life but where human work and effort still has value. |
|
"According to a Rockefeller Panel report commissioned to take an in-depth look at the financial realities of the performer's life:
"The miserable income of the majority of performing artists reflects both a shortage of jobs and the brief duration of employment that is available. In all except the small handful of our major and metropolitan orchestras, musicians earn an average of only a few hundred dollars a year from their professional labors. During an average week in the winter season, only about one-fifth of the active members of Actors' Equity Association, the theatrical performers union, are employed in the profession. Of the actors who do find jobs, well over half are employed for only ten weeks -- less than one-fifth of the year. For most opera compnies the season lasts only a few weeks. The livelihood of the dancer is perhaps the most meager of all."[1]
Now, that's today, with relatively few artists. Imagine a future where there's a flood of artists from all the people who lost their jobs to AI (assuming they all have some desire, ability, and dedication to actually try to make a living as an artist.. very unlikely, but such is supposedly the main hope for a future for these people). Now the wages of artists will be even further depressed as there will be a glut of supply (much like the glut of "photographers" now that everyone has a camera in their cell phone).
Then it has to be asked: who will be buying all of these artisonal products and services from the newly unemployed masses? There's only so much art the relatively well-off are going to want to buy, only so many plays they'll pay to see, and so on. Demand would have to rise tremendously to absorb all the additional supply if the already meager wages that artists earn aren't going to fall to virtually zero. Where is all that extra demand going to come from? The US is already not a place where art is particularly valued. There's no indication that that's going to improve with the advent of job-replacing AI.
[1] - From "Staying Sane in the Arts" by Eric Maisel