At some point in the last decade, the ostensive ostensible goal of automation evolved from savings us from unwanted labor to keeping us from ever doing anything.
If this whole AI craze was actually about replacing labor, I honestly believe it would have started with firing and automating CEOs.
I’m not even saying that as a “eat the rich” shtick - AI is great at analyzing huge datasets and determining a conclusion from the results. It would obviously need refinement, but that would probably be the major role I could see it immediately taking over.
I’ve worked at places where the CEO being removed without a replacement would have had the company run markedly better. So replacing a CEO with just a license to stock ChatGPT would be a net benefit to probably a significant number of corporations.
Except corporations aren’t meant to make a profit, they’re meant to make the executives at the top a profit. Everything else is just a mechanism to do that.
If AI begins to replaces CEO’s then the whole fantasy of capitalistic meritocracy with the most ‘skilled’ or ‘educated’ earning their place at the top falls apart.
And your ancestors also subsistence farmed and didn’t have all the technology you do.
Look I’m as big a critics of our modern capital-industrial system as the next person but it’s crazy to not see how technology has made people more productive and given us more wealth.
It is however quite true that people during the industrial revolution itself were working way more hours than previously which is why the whole labor movement kicked off. We appreciate the gains of previous ancestors fighting for our labor rights.
Could things be better? Certainly. Is automation being maliciously targeted towards art and creativity at the expense of not increasing productivity and reducing drudgery? No.
At some point in the last decade, the
ostensiveostensible goal of automation evolved from savings us from unwanted labor to keeping us from ever doing anything.It says something important about this “revolution” that it’s starting with replacement/replication of art, not labor or manual drudgery work.
If this whole AI craze was actually about replacing labor, I honestly believe it would have started with firing and automating CEOs.
I’m not even saying that as a “eat the rich” shtick - AI is great at analyzing huge datasets and determining a conclusion from the results. It would obviously need refinement, but that would probably be the major role I could see it immediately taking over.
I’ve worked at places where the CEO being removed without a replacement would have had the company run markedly better. So replacing a CEO with just a license to stock ChatGPT would be a net benefit to probably a significant number of corporations.
Except corporations aren’t meant to make a profit, they’re meant to make the executives at the top a profit. Everything else is just a mechanism to do that.
If AI begins to replaces CEO’s then the whole fantasy of capitalistic meritocracy with the most ‘skilled’ or ‘educated’ earning their place at the top falls apart.
This will not happen unless it is forced to.
Except in fact we have just seen 2 centuries of drudgery automated. Have you seen a combine harvester?
So many machines, yet I’m working more hours than my ancestors.
And your ancestors also subsistence farmed and didn’t have all the technology you do.
Look I’m as big a critics of our modern capital-industrial system as the next person but it’s crazy to not see how technology has made people more productive and given us more wealth.
Also the idea that peasants had lore days off is sorts debunked: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/kks6tq/comment/gh4oh5c
It is however quite true that people during the industrial revolution itself were working way more hours than previously which is why the whole labor movement kicked off. We appreciate the gains of previous ancestors fighting for our labor rights.
Could things be better? Certainly. Is automation being maliciously targeted towards art and creativity at the expense of not increasing productivity and reducing drudgery? No.
it’s a crying shame that the lion’s share of all that wealth is parked at the pockets of the 0.1%
Agreed
Does it? I’d imagine it just makes sense that the tech used for AI in art would be used for art.
I don’t see how it would be used for labor without a bunch of other steps.
And as also pointed out, there’s tech that, while not specifically “AI”, is used to replace labor.
You can still build a garden by hand even if it’s commercially done with machines. It will be the same with drawing, voice acting, etc.
The problem is and has always been capitalism and the rich that abuse of it, not automation.
Not if you’re too busy between your two jobs manually training the LLM models and supervising the supposedly autonomous cars to make rent.