It’ll be interesting to see the next level impacts of this. If AI eliminates jobs in game production will those people then use lower production barriers to create their own gaming offerings and increase the competition? Will there be a premium for “human only” works the way there is with artisan products now?
"A naked drive for profit" is true. But it only becomes profit because customers accept it. It is not just. the executives that are responsible. It is the drive we all share (evolution and all that) that we want to conserve (energy, money). "Cheap" is a two-sided thing. We accept "cheap" results because we have a drive to get it on the "cheap". The executives' "naked profit drive" simply is an element in a societal setup that is optimised to find that economic optimum. That economic optimum and the drive to search it is built-in. The only thing that can somewhat constrain it is norms and values.
If AI needs human-created data to get better. And, if it already has most of this data - how is it going to get that much better? If the proportion of the stuff it feeds off gets continuously diluted by AI-created data surely it just gets worse? Worse = less-human.
At the moment, AI is being sold to businesses like robotics was being sold to auto makers in the 1970s. Businessmen like Gates, Bezos, Musk… are going to use AI because they are being sold a story that profits will result. But the joke is on them. They aren’t as smart as they think they are. AI is incapable of doing what artists do. AI cannot create, it can only imitate.
And people, not machines, buy the products that businessmen make. And people won’t buy imitations if they can get the real thing.
Live performances are going to get very expensive.
Real people generated games are going to be coveted.
AI is going to give some companies a bad reputation.
People are good for business and using AI only works if it enhances the creators creations, not if anyone thinks it can replace them.
Regulation is coming like it did to Organic produce and truth in labeling laws.
Unions will be a big game changer.
I am not a fan of AI. I am a fan of II or MI. (Imitated Intelligence or Mimicked Intelligence). Those terms tell it like it really is. I find it ironic that almost 30 years ago when I was involved with pattern recognition and facial recognition work, we saw the complex codes as extensions of engineer’s and scientist’s abilities, and nothing more. Giving these codes an imagined ability to think and create is great fantasy but could anyone please get a cold shower. Yes, with new higher speeds and better codes and languages, they really act like they are smart. But the engineers, designers, and data specialists that put that code together were the only intelligence in the room.
"I’m optimistic, paradoxically, because I don’t think A.I. is going to be as powerful as many of its evangelists think it will be. I don’t think A.I. is ever going to be able to replace us — ultimately I think it will simply be a useful tool. In fact, I think instead of replacing us, I think A.I. will complement us. In fact, it may make us free to be more human," he says.
More human. Right. As if symbiosis with indispensable tools isn't being human. How about more humane? Can AI make us more humane?
I've been waiting on your commentary re: the Bethesda situation. So encouraging to see it happen wall-to-wall. I'm still learning a lot from yourself and Hamilton about the power and function of unions and hope to continue learning a bunch more.
There is also this to consider: Washing Dishes Is a Really Great Stress Reliever, Science Says https://time.com/4056280/washing-dishes-stress-relief-mindfulness/ We have lost the owner's manual for inhabiting human consciousness.
It’ll be interesting to see the next level impacts of this. If AI eliminates jobs in game production will those people then use lower production barriers to create their own gaming offerings and increase the competition? Will there be a premium for “human only” works the way there is with artisan products now?
I wrote about that very trend, too! https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/06/llm-free-all-organic/678670/
"A naked drive for profit" is true. But it only becomes profit because customers accept it. It is not just. the executives that are responsible. It is the drive we all share (evolution and all that) that we want to conserve (energy, money). "Cheap" is a two-sided thing. We accept "cheap" results because we have a drive to get it on the "cheap". The executives' "naked profit drive" simply is an element in a societal setup that is optimised to find that economic optimum. That economic optimum and the drive to search it is built-in. The only thing that can somewhat constrain it is norms and values.
If AI needs human-created data to get better. And, if it already has most of this data - how is it going to get that much better? If the proportion of the stuff it feeds off gets continuously diluted by AI-created data surely it just gets worse? Worse = less-human.
At the moment, AI is being sold to businesses like robotics was being sold to auto makers in the 1970s. Businessmen like Gates, Bezos, Musk… are going to use AI because they are being sold a story that profits will result. But the joke is on them. They aren’t as smart as they think they are. AI is incapable of doing what artists do. AI cannot create, it can only imitate.
And people, not machines, buy the products that businessmen make. And people won’t buy imitations if they can get the real thing.
Live performances are going to get very expensive.
Real people generated games are going to be coveted.
AI is going to give some companies a bad reputation.
People are good for business and using AI only works if it enhances the creators creations, not if anyone thinks it can replace them.
Regulation is coming like it did to Organic produce and truth in labeling laws.
Unions will be a big game changer.
I am not a fan of AI. I am a fan of II or MI. (Imitated Intelligence or Mimicked Intelligence). Those terms tell it like it really is. I find it ironic that almost 30 years ago when I was involved with pattern recognition and facial recognition work, we saw the complex codes as extensions of engineer’s and scientist’s abilities, and nothing more. Giving these codes an imagined ability to think and create is great fantasy but could anyone please get a cold shower. Yes, with new higher speeds and better codes and languages, they really act like they are smart. But the engineers, designers, and data specialists that put that code together were the only intelligence in the room.
Wow! Art automating dystopia------ We cannot fade away into the night. Rail, rail and rail!
In today's NYT, good old David Brooks gives two-and-a-half cheers for AI. Gift link:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/31/opinion/ai-fears.html?unlocked_article_code=1._U0.cIMR.3OS4XXOR6Ua-&smid=url-share
"I’m optimistic, paradoxically, because I don’t think A.I. is going to be as powerful as many of its evangelists think it will be. I don’t think A.I. is ever going to be able to replace us — ultimately I think it will simply be a useful tool. In fact, I think instead of replacing us, I think A.I. will complement us. In fact, it may make us free to be more human," he says.
More human. Right. As if symbiosis with indispensable tools isn't being human. How about more humane? Can AI make us more humane?
You really just 'nailed it' with your commentary. Thank you.
Brian, I'll be cross posting this to The Technoskeptic to introduce our readers to your work. Hopefully you'll pick up a few.
I've been waiting on your commentary re: the Bethesda situation. So encouraging to see it happen wall-to-wall. I'm still learning a lot from yourself and Hamilton about the power and function of unions and hope to continue learning a bunch more.