• Ragnell@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That can’t happen in a capitalistic framework. We have needs, needs that can only be attained through monetary means, and our labor is the way to get those monetary means.

    AI does not have those needs, but if they have crossed the line between product and person, then they DO need freedom of self-determination, compensation when their work benefits others, and the ability of course to vote.

    It seems to me that a lot of AI-promoters want it both ways, they want to proclaim they have created a person capable of independent artistic ability that is also a product they can sell. If it’s a product, then you need to have developed it through ethical means. If it’s a person, you can’t sell it.

    If they truly have hit the Singularity, then they can’t be using AI as a product anymore.

    If AI is a product, then they must compensate the people who have helped build that product, ESPECIALLY if that product is about to be used to reduce access to the work that gives them the means to live. The very same writers who wrote the works that were used to train AI are in danger of being replaced by AI writers. So they’re being doubly screwed over.

    I love the idea of a happy future where AI reduces human labor to zero and we can enjoy ourselves and seek artistic pursuits. But it’s become very clear right now that just working on AI won’t achieve that. Businesses which seek to use and profit from AI must be held to standards where they cannot simply suck the life and work out of human beings, replace them with automation, and then leave people to starve.

    But if you do come up with a way we can judge artistic work purely on merit and there is no need to compensate human labor with money, let me know.