I, like 99% of people who enjoy creating stuff, am never going to make money from it. Worrying about that 1% of people is just insane, and really, the small fraction of those people who truly get to be creative, rather than slaving at producing someone’s corporate vision, are going to be fine anyway.

This reply that the other person also made is just crazy to me. Isn’t lemmy, by and large, anti-capitalist? Why should the ability to make money off something even matter? Are you upset that people who really enjoy laying bricks will be mostly out of work if 3D-printed houses or some other technology replaces traditional building? Technology that obsoletes jobs is always a good thing for society; if the fruits of that technology are only enjoyed by a tiny fraction of society, that is a problem with how society is organised, not with technology.

Technology means the time you spend doing laundry and dishes is likely a tenth of what it was 100 years ago.

The reason AI, specifically, can do images and language but not load the dishwasher and washing machine is because those latter tasks are far harder and have worse consequences if you do them wrong. If the AI fucks up creating an image, so what? You tell it to make a new one. If it gets them all wrong then so what? You give up on it. If the AI robot fucks up loading the dishwasher, it breaks all your plates and then the dishwasher. If the AI robot fucks up doing the laundry, it tears all your shirts in half and smashes the washing machine.

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.

Good news! The existence of AI does literally nothing to stop you from pursuing any kind of creative activity!

Fun fact: I experimented with an LLM for creative writing and it was so shit it inspired me to resume work on some half baked story ideas. This year I resolved to take up drawing again and get better at it.

k?

Do you consider it being “spoonfed” to you when you read a book and the plot and everything is just written down?

Do you consider it positive that you have to “work for it” if every fifth word is written in Chinese and you have to translate them?

Making it hard to understand does not make it good. Making it easy does not make it bad. Is there an aspect of it you like that isn’t just that it’s hard to understand? Because that’s all you mentioned.

Zanzibart forgive me

Eh? It has almost none, and what there is is rendered completely inconsistent.

Yeah. And Skyrim really needed better VAs. That one guy who voiced Farengar just did not properly understand some of his lines and consequently butchered them.

Yeah, that is a great classic example. There’s a lot of environmental storytelling so you can get an idea of what’s going on, and what it is is very interesting, but it doesn’t get in the way of the game or its story.

“Zanzibart, forgive me”.

Nah, Fromsoft has great vibes. But the worldbuilding and story is all deliberately obscured because of Miyazaki’s love of sci-fi he couldn’t properly read. That makes it a trove for obsessives but it can’t really be called good.

Doesn’t “need” to? What does that even mean?

If the manufacturer had all the power in the relationship, the product would cost even more.

And if the us government were lending someone money to buy Nvidia, that may be relevant.

Why doesn’t a 4090 cost $1,000,000?

Even assuming it does, it won’t be for a good while before it comes through to GPU prices.

There was a puzzle at an online puzzle hunt recently that was about this phrase. It was annoyingly ambiguous due to languages that have more than one phrase.

Dumb thermostats last for multiple decades.

is a hot dog a sandwich

no

is cereal soup

no

is a foo a thing-which-obviously-is-not-a-foo

no

The UK is becoming more automatic now, and we also have a lot of EVs. I learnt on a manual but didn’t get a car until last year, which is electric. It’s much better.

Nobody thinks they’re incapable of working this out; we think theyre deliberately advertising something dumb that lay people won’t necessarily understand is dumb. Replying that they have smart engineers is stupid because no-one denied it - we just don’t think they used those engineers to come up with the idea.