[yowzadave]

If we outsource the job of art-making to bots, what will remain for humans to do? Given that there are so many jobs that involve real drudgery, it’s odd to me that we’re trying so hard to automate the fun/rewarding/creative parts, while leaving the difficult, repetitive, mind-numbing parts to humans.

[bee_rider]

I think this is probably because interesting jobs require handling information, which computers are good at, and boring ones require just shuffling stuff around in the physical world, which computers are still mediocre at.

But, designing a robot that can do tedious tasks is an intellectual job, just a really hard one. If we automate intellectual jobs to the point where, like, any random team of 10 people with engineering degrees can make a really good robot, I guess we should see the tedious jobs taken too.

[yowzadave]

I used to work as an architect. As far as I am aware, AI/automation has so far only made inroads in the earliest "concept" phases--image-making, concept massing, conceptual space-planning, etc. That is only the first, shortest, and most creative part of designing a building. After the concept design has finished, there are longer and more expensive phases of design development and construction drawing that still require huge amounts of coordination between the various design/construction professionals & stakeholders. At this phase, the work is much more practical: adding detail to the drawings reveals that, say, the size of the required mechanical units exceed the area that originally been allocated to them in the concept phase, and the architect will need to work with the structural engineer/mechanical engineer/client/etc. to modify the solution so that the building still works. It's this latter phase of drawing/coordinating/redrawing that has so far been very resistant to automation.

I would still call this part of an architect's job "intellectual work". My guess is that it hasn't been automated because it requires deep domain knowledge in multiple areas...knowledge which your typical AI software person doesn't have.

[P_I_Staker]

What kind of "art work" is being AI'd? Art itself can be repetitive and mind numbing. I'd like some artists to weigh in, if they exist here.

It seems like in many people's minds art is something that comes from within. An idea pops into a brain; you ascend to the clouds. There it is, clear as day: YOUR IDEA. All you have to do is collect it and take it down to earth to sell... of course I don't have to pay you! You didn't have to do any REAL work. You're basically running through the fields catching butterflies. Seems like a common misconception about art.

The reality of art to me seems like it can be just as drudgy as doing the dishes, spreadsheets, or digging ditches. It seems like this is where we're seeing AI used the most?

It's interesting to see famous songwriters weigh in, many of which are likely glorified producers. From what, I understand this has sort of already happened to musicians, with the invent of DAWs and other tooling, even earlier versions of AI.

Wondering if they're finally coming for the engineers and producers. Actually these celeb artists will probably already be fine. They'll just pay their people to use AI, instead of paying session musicians and producers.

[raven105x]

That's an economic problem to be solved just like the printing press and the industrial revolution. Like I said, we've been in a BS economy for a while now.