[Martinussen]

Doesn't apply to all situations, but "replace things that were done by humans" in arts can absolutely be a loss by itself. Making graphics/speech/video a commodity doesn't replace designers, voice actors, or directors, but we've definitely see it can directly harm them and the people that enjoy their work.

> can't find better things to do, such that it makes them poorer, or anti-social its a loss

I feel like this misses the point a bit - lost income/sustainability for artists is obviously a big issue we'll be facing, but looking for a performance indicator in an artistic endeavour doesn't really get you anywhere. There's more ways to value a painting than "what the market would pay" and "potential heat output as firewood", right?

[brookst]

How do you feel about what word processors did to the typist career?

[add-sub-mul-div]

How do you feel about replacing general labor, period, and doing so for a class that no longer maintains a semblance of a social safety net? Do you think there's a difference between displacing one profession and displacing most professions at once?

Do you people ever step out of the abstract and think about the actual context you're living in?

[lern_too_spel]

I will gladly pay taxes directed for retraining artists, but I will not pay to listen to Wil Wheaton narrate another book badly when my computer can do it better.

[brookst]

I mentioned typists, you abstracted it to “most professions at once”, and you give me a hard time for being too abstract?

I agree with your criticism, just not sure you understand who you were criticizing. But I hope you can think about actual context and see if that tempers what seems like a pretty emotional take on AI.