it's not a matter of what's complicated, it's a matter of what it replaces. the quote isn't reflecting on what's easiest to solve, it's reflecting on the impact that it has on culture as a whole.

a tangible impact of the current generation of AI tools is they displace and drown out human creations in a flood of throwaway, meaningless garbage. this is amplifying the ongoing conversion of art into "content" that's interacted with in extremely superficial and thoughtless ways.

just because something _can_ be automated doesn't mean it _should_ be. we actively lose something when human creativity is replaced with algorithmically generated content because human creativity is as much a reflection of the state of the art as it is a reflection of the inner life of the person who engages in it. it's a way to learn about one another.

in the context of the broader discussion of "does greater efficiency everywhere actually have any benefit beyond increasing profits," the type of thing being made efficient matters. we don't need more efficient poetry, and the promise of automation and AI should be that it allows us to shrug off things that aren't fulfilling - washing dishes, cleaning the house, so on - and focus on things that are fulfilling and meaningful.

the net impact of these technologies has largely been to devalue or eliminate human beings working in creative roles, people whose work has already largely been devalued and minimized.

it's totally akin to "where's my flying car?" nobody actually cares about the flying car, the point is that as technology marches on, things seem to universally get worse and it's often unclear who the new development is benefitting.

I'll agree that AI has flooded the internet with low-effort slop. I feel like I can make a pretty strong argument that this isn't new, low-effort SEO spam has been a thing for almost as long as search engines have, but it does seem like ChatGPT (and its ilk) has brought that to 11.

> just because something _can_ be automated doesn't mean it _should_ be.

I guess agree to disagree on that. If a machine can do something better that a human, then the machine should do it so that the human can focus on stuff that machines can't do as easily.

> Replacing humans in areas that humans are passionate about, forcing humans to compete with machines, is frankly inhuman

I don't think it's going to "force" anyone out. We didn't suddenly fire all the artists the second that the camera was invented. We didn't stop paying for live concerts the moment that recorded music was available to purchase.

> Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around

I am not good at art. I find it pleasurable to be able to generate a picture in a few seconds that I can use for stuff. It allows me to focus on other things that I find fun instead of opening up CorelPainter and spending hours on something that won't look as good as the AI stuff.

I could of course hire someone to do the art for me, but that cost money that I don't really have. The anti-AI people who just parrot "JUST PAY AN ARTIST LOLOLOL!" are dumb if they think that most people just have cash lying around to spend on random bits of custom art.

Last time I checked, I am human. The AI art manages to allow me to enjoy things I wouldn't have been able to easily achieve before.

> Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around

No one's saying that. And a machine making a painting is never going to stop a human from doing so.

> as if there's this straight-line path of progress

I think your rebuttal is really bizarre. OP is simply saying what they want AI to do.

> Who is to say that "washing dishes" (to use your example) is a less complicated problem than art

I think dish washing is a bad example, because we have dishwashers. But until the market brings AI and robotic solutions to market at an affordable cost that actually fulfill most people's needs, it will continue to be a net drain on the average person.

You don't get to tell people what they want or need.

I guess what I was getting at (and I'll acknowledge that I didn't word it as well as I should), is something along the lines of: "what if automating art is a necessary step if we want to automate the boring stuff?"

I think you are probably right. But what is really frustrating about this is the lack of alignment on what people want vs what industries need.

We talk so much about how capitalism is built around people's needs, but that betrays another reality, which is that people only get what capitalism produces.

If we were a planned economy we could skip right to an android in everyone's homes. But we wouldn't even have the tech for the android with a planned economy. So instead, we have to feed capitalism what it needs so it can innovate. Which sometimes is just a net loss for everyone in the meantime.

The comment you’re replying to doesn’t offer any line of reasoning. They’re expressing a preference regarding what they would find beneficial.

Washing dishes can be a creative act (but it depends a lot on who is doing it).

Yes, exactly like that...dishwashing as creative destruction.

Thanks for that.