[drooby]

There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. People care about the creator. The source defines the work, the awe, and the emotional response.

But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must.

The law is our collective action. We socially construct what we value. We could fight to preserve the 5-day work week doing what machines can do. But.. I’d rather fight for collective ownership of the machines.

[dolebirchwood]

> There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport.

I can't speak about sports, but I'll share an anecdote about art.

A friend of mine shared an AI-produced song, and I was surprised by its quality. The producer credited Suno as the only tool he used, so I was curious to see what this thing could do. Paid for the pro plan and my wife and I were having a blast coming up with songs we'd like to listen to.

They were songs that neither of us were capable of making, but they were genuinely fun to conjure (I won't say "make"--we didn't make anything) and she listens to them in the car pretty regularly now. And when we want something new, we can just conjure up some more.

Yes, I know this is only possible because of the human-created music that served as the training data. I don't intend to comment on the morality/legality of it (although it's fair conversation to have). Just noting that some of us do actually appreciate AI music.

But maybe I'm exactly the sort of sucker from Huxley's "Brave New World" that he warned about. :)

[wise0wl]

It's the novelty that you're chasing. Deeply consider what it is that you are enjoying, because it's not very different from doom scrolling or quickly stale bubble gum. Maybe AI produces pop music that supplants the long-standing music industry. I couldn't give a shit if it does. Pop music is nepotism and exploitation with the random artist who sneaks through.

I love music, but it is the feeling, experience, and emotion of the creator that comes through that I enjoy. I love live shows, and I love the passion that the artist brings to a live show. I will never get that from AI, so why would I listen to it? It's the same reason I will not read a book that AI makes. AI may understand the mechanisms of story telling, or what chords sound good to a human ear, but because AI cannot have a lived experience of the world it cannot create. Form without intent. Form without a nature of it's own.

I'm good. I'll pass. I think you see it too, by your commend about being the sort of sucker from 1984 and I hope that you come to realize what you are inviting in.

[jatora]

>I love music, but it is the feeling, experience, and emotion of the creator that comes through that I enjoy.

This belief is not true and I will fight to the bedrock of psychology and nature against this until the ridiculous sentiment is eradicated from humanity's lexicon.

There are fundamental aspects to our perception, across all senses, that lie underneath human creation. You enjoy the warmth of the sun, the cool of a breeze, the sound of a running stream, the majesty of mountains and oceans, the power of storms. These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator. Believing that you care about the creator, and that it fundamentally underpins your enjoyment of sense perception is shallow thinking.

[javascriptfan69]

>You enjoy the warmth of the sun, the cool of a breeze, the sound of a running stream, the majesty of mountains and oceans, the power of storms. These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator.

I don't think this is true. I think that if you found out you were in a simulation and that all these things were just electrical pulses being sent to your brain in a jar it would vastly change your perception of the world. And I think that's a good analogy for AI

[hardbass]

How will it change anything? Simulation is a pointless term that has no meaning here. It is completely real to you. In fact I don't even know whats the difference between a so called "real" universe and a "boltzmann" brain. This weird "analogy" seems to ignore information itself needs a certain amount of energy/matter/space, I doubt simulating our universe can be done with anything less than the universal size of complexity.

[javascriptfan69]

Whether it's possible or not is not really relevant.

All I'm saying is that if you were shown undeniable proof that you were in a simulation I think it would change how you felt about "reality".

[PuppetSoup]

> These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator.

Why is it so black and white? There are things like warmth of the sun, that I enjoy without the creator. There are also art and music that I didn't appreciate at first before knowing the story and the creator behind them. Then I understood where the piece of art came from and what were the emotions behind it when creating it.

[jatora]

Because one obviously came before the other, one is more natural and biological.

[drooby]

No, this is a totally fair response. That was probably the core error in my argument.

Some people, perhaps most, will enjoy AI art. Artists are at risk of displacement too.

But a subset of art appreciators hold firm that the creator is an essential aspect of the work, and I don’t see that conviction fading.

How large this subset is, I don’t know. But they also happen to be the world’s tastemakers and trendsetters. Their beliefs largely shape our aesthetic world, so their influence may only grow.

[chrneu]

AI repeats itself. You aren't enjoying anything new, you're enjoying a version of an average.

In however many years we'll wake up and wonder why everything is the same....oh wait.

this is exactly why people dont like this. it creates an echo chamber in art which kills what art itself is about. it normalizes noise.

[jatora]

If you want to be reductive then everything is already the same. Music is 99% the same chords, art is 99% the same colors, etc... Or you can argue from good faith and actually learn or teach.

[dxdm]

Your argument can be used to discredit all arguments, including itself. Because your argument is made only of the same letters as all others (let's stay in English, without losing generality), it is the same as all others, and thus it has no discernible point.

Note that it's you who introduced this reduction, not the GP.

[jatora]

The reduction i introduced... was satire. Whoosh . It helps to read the thread before knee jerk responding

[dxdm]

Whoosh, indeed.

[yummybrainz]

> I’d rather fight for collective ownership of the machines.

I would love if we could force the big tech companies to release their models + weights since they're fundamentally products built on the collective labors of humanity (at least some of which is licensed under the GPL or the CC-BY-SA).

If I could hit a button and abolish copyright and the notion of intellectual property, I would.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement

[nlawalker]

>But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also argue that there's art in a lot of that output, in the form of intent, decision making and communication. But I admit that the value of those really depends on the eye of the beholder and the situation.

[skiboyec]

Service work may last longer than other sectors, as some portion of the value provided in service work is human connection.

But I agree, when our minds and bodies are no longer capable of doing things that machines can’t, the only thing we have left to sell is our humanity

[xgulfie]

Art is definitely being devalued by AI, today. I'm sure Banksy is fine but artists along the margins are competing with genAI