• FishFace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago
    1. What roles, exactly, are being replaced by AI? With the quality of AI output at the moment, it mainly isn’t the people producing amazing creative writing and art - it’s people making corporate slop, rather than AI slop.
    2. What proportion of people who enjoy some creative activity like writing actually do get to make money off it, in any capacity - corporate slop or otherwise? It’s a tiny, tiny proportion. So tiny it’s just not worth worrying about.

    At the end of the day, if you free someone from having to do their job, that ought to be a net positive for society - that’s 40 hours a week (roughly) that society gets back as free time. Unfortunately, the person who lost that job now has to find a 40-hour job from somewhere else, and the extra productivity lines the pockets of some billionaire.

    If that didn’t happen, and instead the 40 hours a week, multiplied by a million people whose jobs got automated, were given back to society, that’s 40 million hours society can choose to spend on creative pursuits - if they want. This has nothing to do with AI. When a new fully automated rail line is deployed, we’re not worrying about all the kids who are dying to be train drivers are going to do when they grow up and all trains are driverless, but it’s actually the exact same thing going on.

    I’m not going to turn my art hobby into income, the same way as my music hobby, video gaming hobby, reading hobby, TV-watching and cooking hobbies are not going to turn into an income stream. I do them because I like them, and I’m not even good enough at any of them to make money off them, but that doesn’t matter.

    • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 minutes ago

      I agree with your general sentiment but I have to ask - why shouldn’t a person be able to make a living wage off what they enjoy doing (such as art, music, etc.)? Why not?