These remind me of the recent AI generated art work that caused quite a stir by winning the digital arts category at a state fair art contest.
Théâtre D'opéra Spatial Was made by Jason Allen via midjourney. Most of the controversy comes from economic and socioeconomic stand points- a software prompt was used- an AI a tool that could theoretically be used by almost anyone with basic skills to create images that with a skillful eye and editing would be good enough to win a competition like this- it’s something that has many illustrators worried and others who are mindful that automation is reaching levels of sophistication where it could start taking jobs that were long considered “machine proof” away from humans.
The other angle is similar in that many are upset by the trend for the ultra wealthy to increasingly use automation coupled with “gig work” to pay less to employees and make more money while leveraging technologies that only the super rich can capitalize on in this way.
There are interesting theoretical and philosophical questions here- the general creative- especially professionals in art of the modern day- well- most aren’t hand drawing or cutting out sheets of shading hatch or all the “manual labor” once involved in art- illustration and design- even when “hand drawn” is now often “hand drawn” on computer using all manner of tools and aids to smooth and tweak and color or shade etc. so I mean- is an “AI painting” “cheating” compared to that anymore than the modern norms of creating with digital help is “cheating?” Anyone who’s ever put together tracks or compositions of music using re digital or early digital (70’s and 80’s) tools and done so with modern technology knows that freeware and a phone can do that used to cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars and what used to be practiced skills and intuition or experience and extremely difficult can be done by a kid or a grandma with a weekend spent at a free mall seminar or just playing around
So that part is interesting. Where do we draw the line? No pun intended- but speaking of drawing lines- I remember learning how to use a drafting table. Most people probably know what “CAD” design is- if you are familiar with most 3D printing etc. it should be very familiar. Long ago before so much software or even computers existed- you did those types of plans using pencil and pen and analog tools. You plotted every line and angle and curve and did the math and your lines were only as true and correct as your hands and brain and use of the tools allowed. It was a skill, motor skills and special knowledge. Programs came along and to use those effectively took certain skills too. Now, little kids use modern CAD to make and 3D print things at home. So yes- a lot of people who spent a lot of time learning and mastering the “old skills” suddenly became much less valuable and then the people with special knowledge and computer literacy also became less valuable to where almost anyone can..
Start as a drafter without being even an engineer or a computer whiz. If you can figure out the program and follow basic instructions you can draft for big firms that don’t generally toe their engineers up with the “busy work” and have dedicated drafters. And then globalization with that automation made it practical and often advantageous to farm that work out so even many big firms just have out of country contractors draft. At the top end- drafting can be automated to a point where I doubt it will be long before the job is largely obsolete.
But that happens right? Skilled and unskilled labor- guys with poles used to knock on windows to wake people up because clocks and alarms weren’t common or weren’t a thing even. Coal miners have been phasing out for a long time. In fields like construction and logging we got power tools and you suddenly needed 5 guys to do the work of 10 and the precise motor skills and tricks for the old tools became devalued. Then we got heavy equipment and 10 guys and some machines can do the work of 200 and the level of individual motor skill or specific task mastery for a lot of the job became useless because the machines make those things obsolete for humans.
So where do we draw the line? Someday will most people simply be employed fixing machines that make the world work? What about when we make machines that can diagnose and fix the other machines?
Instead of 5 people to maintain 20 machines will we need 1 person to just watch over the 5 machines that repair 100?
But… why does this all have to be such a bad thing? I mean- it’s all rooted in this traditional concept of economics right? But think about it- people work because we need things. You need food- but your food is grown by a guy who needs fuel for his tractor. Someone else has to make the fuel. Someone else has to transport the fuel and the food to and from the production step to the person that needs it. We need people to do these jobs, and so we pay people money so they can take that money and go get things they need from other people and those other people take that money and get what they need but don’t have right? Ok. So… when your food is grown by a robot- the top it doesn’t tend money and it doesn’t want vacations or to send its kids to college. It just works because it was made for that task.
The robot needed to be built though. The materials needed to be mined from the ground or harvested, they were transported around and processed and assembled. Ok. But what if a robot dug the materials and a robot truck transported them to a place where robots unloaded it and robots processed it and robots assembled it? The only step there we really need a human for is what? Designing the robots? Doing the work to make the initial robots and gather the initial materials before the robots started doing the work? So it’s all robots now. So the robots don’t need much and they don’t want anything. So why do we need to pay for food grown by a robot?
And if you don’t need to pay the robot to grow your food… why do you need to work to make money? By the time all or most work would be done by robots- our entire concept of economics could be obsolete.
At that point the entire charade is up and money is revealed as only a tool of class or privilege delineation. People will still want to go to the space hotel or own a fancy car or a big house or have more food or better food…. And we would need some way to say why this person could have a mansion in a beautiful place with great weather and this person gets an apartment in a place with terrible weather and this person has to live in poverty… because having robots do all the work doesn’t mean we suddenly have unlimited resources or production capacity. It doesn’t mean that suddenly there isn’t any environmental impact to what we do or we don’t need vast areas to gather resources from to feed our appetites.
So how and where does the “money” come in- the part where someone is going to say they own the land the robot is farming and they want something because… they have a piece of paper that says that is their dirt..? And someone will probably want something extra because they designed the robots or they own the robots etc etc. and most people will want “more.” A screen in every room. A tablet for when their phone is too small, a laptop for when their desktop is too big, a smart watch for when reaching in their pocket is too inconvenient… 7 devices to do the same thing. A nicer couch and some way to “know they’re better than” or “as good as” their neighbor. So we are already sort of facing the start of that problem- as we come face to face with the reality that our economies and basic ways of thinking aren’t sustainable and can’t keep up with technology unless we force things to conform to a standard that allows us to keep propping up systems that don’t work but are familiar and serve the…
.. wealthy and powerful. The fear of the future largely comes from people who know deep down how good and easy they have life but on the surface deny their privilege or ignore the suffering of those who must suffer so they can be where they are, and those people being confronted with the fragility of their situations. The fear that as they wealth gap widens the people who have been able to live comfortably and to a high standard compared to most of the world will start to have less and less and slip further and further from emulating some watered down version of the lifestyles enjoyed by the wealthiest and be vast asides with the same people that those privileged folks have been standing in the backs of. The exporters fear becoming the exploited.
This is a lesson in civics I’ve said many times before and say again- we must protect the rights and human dignity of our fellow humans because one day- eventually if you live long enough- “you” will find that society has decided that “you” are no longer a person to be classified as with “them” but you are now one of the “others” whom you had profited from their exploitation and abuse either gleefully or with a bling eye to ignore it so you could enjoy your gains in relative peace from guilt.
So there’s alot of interesting stuff there. That said…
If you haven’t seen the painting I’m talking about, even if all the futurism and automation stuff doesn’t interest you- maybe check out the painting. Regardless of how it came to exist it’s a pretty cool painting.
Théâtre D'opéra Spatial Was made by Jason Allen via midjourney. Most of the controversy comes from economic and socioeconomic stand points- a software prompt was used- an AI a tool that could theoretically be used by almost anyone with basic skills to create images that with a skillful eye and editing would be good enough to win a competition like this- it’s something that has many illustrators worried and others who are mindful that automation is reaching levels of sophistication where it could start taking jobs that were long considered “machine proof” away from humans.
The other angle is similar in that many are upset by the trend for the ultra wealthy to increasingly use automation coupled with “gig work” to pay less to employees and make more money while leveraging technologies that only the super rich can capitalize on in this way.
So where do we draw the line? Someday will most people simply be employed fixing machines that make the world work? What about when we make machines that can diagnose and fix the other machines?
But… why does this all have to be such a bad thing? I mean- it’s all rooted in this traditional concept of economics right? But think about it- people work because we need things. You need food- but your food is grown by a guy who needs fuel for his tractor. Someone else has to make the fuel. Someone else has to transport the fuel and the food to and from the production step to the person that needs it. We need people to do these jobs, and so we pay people money so they can take that money and go get things they need from other people and those other people take that money and get what they need but don’t have right? Ok. So… when your food is grown by a robot- the top it doesn’t tend money and it doesn’t want vacations or to send its kids to college. It just works because it was made for that task.
At that point the entire charade is up and money is revealed as only a tool of class or privilege delineation. People will still want to go to the space hotel or own a fancy car or a big house or have more food or better food…. And we would need some way to say why this person could have a mansion in a beautiful place with great weather and this person gets an apartment in a place with terrible weather and this person has to live in poverty… because having robots do all the work doesn’t mean we suddenly have unlimited resources or production capacity. It doesn’t mean that suddenly there isn’t any environmental impact to what we do or we don’t need vast areas to gather resources from to feed our appetites.
So there’s alot of interesting stuff there. That said…
.
(TITLE FROM REDDIT r/whoadude)