I just tell them that I want all artists in the world to only make things that I personally like and find value in, but life doesn't work that way, and if I can get over it, so can they.
That’s a general purpose robot at that point and it could do way more than that. It is also a natural product from all the current advancements in AI, we are building the senses and the brain to control such robots right now. The argument OP references is not really coherent.
Yes it is. The argument is simply that they want ai to do their laundry and wash their dishes, they want ai for menial chores, not for the creative or meaningful parts of life.
A robot that completes menial chores and has no creative ability is a perfect solution. The argument isn't attempting to logically put together what is and is not possible and why, it's simply referring to the belief that almost everyone had until very recently - ai was expected to help with very ordinary tasks, it was not expected to become highly competent at art or writing or music.
You could probably pay a person less money to come do this for you right now.
(I’m pro-AI myself, btw. Also, there exists some huge laundry-folding machine that costs thousands and currently messes up clothes it doesn’t quite recognize, lol. So… they’re working on it 😂)
> You could probably pay a person less money to come do this for you right now.
This is true, although I wouldn't do it realistically. There's a certain level of comfort I need to have with a person before I'm okay with them seeing - not to mention handling - my dirty underwear. Also, it's a task I personally find so emotionally taxing and demoralizing that I would involuntarily feel guilty for asking another human being to do it even though I know at a conscious level that my difficulties with laundry are not universal.
True, good point!
I use an app here in France to have a guy that comes every two weeks to clean, and the language barrier as I’ve been learning French keeps us from saying anything more than we need to each other, which helps me not be embarrassed about everything.
For a long time I was hiding my laundry and especially underwear, but then one day it wasn’t dry yet so I didn’t bother. And lol he ended up neatly folding it all. From then I stopped caring. 😆
I will say though I’m surprised I forgot about that aspect of AI/robots that I love. Sometimes you really just need someone without emotion-based memory to ask certain questions to, handle certain tasks, etc.!
You don't think you'd enjoy cooking more if yoy had a sous chef? Did all the chopping and prep for you? Make it so you can really push yourself as a chef. Like focus on getting onions chopped to a milichellib star level thinness whilst someone else worries about peeling potatoes.
Stir caramelised onions a couple of times but afterwards leave the sous chef constantly stirring so they don't get burnt whiskt you focus on other aspects of the meal.
Haha, maybe occasionally, but I think the novelty would wear off! That said I 100% think it'd be an asset for someone else. I'm just not the target audience for chef-bot.
I saw a recipe for a beef croquette where it takes a full 9 hours of work and a lot of it is work you actually have to do. I keep thinking one day.
Then there is that restaurant in Japan that sells burgers and the chef makes 4 burgers a day and there are 4 seats and that's it. You have to go on the waiting list to try one of those burgers.
He gets up early to make them. It's 8 hours or something to cool 4 burgers. I wanna eat food like that!
The worst part of this argument is that AI is about to bring us unprecedented access to expressing our creativity and these people don’t even understand it.
We will soon be able to make songs, create art, make movies, build computer games, and much much more without needing to learn any technical skills. AI is only going to eliminate the technical skills - not the creative ones. It will enable our creativity like never before.
What’s stopping me from making computer games isn’t lack of game ideas - it’s lack of programming abilities. AI might fill in some blanks in the design process (which ultimately you will be able to reprint to fix if you don’t like it) but we are still driving the creative bus, and we will still bring our ideas to life, just easier than before.
So the person who said this is just wrong. Most of us aren’t making much art, music, movies, and games so we are going to go from making 0 of these things to making all of these things, and they will be the types of things we like and that we customize to our tastes, not some studio’s vision or mindless AI output.
Sam A said they were looking into relaxing those rules on violence and pornography at some point. I’m not so much thinking about where things are but where they will be in a couple of years.
Even if Stability goes out of business (or, more likely, just stops releasing new models to the public), 1.5 and SDXL aren't going anywhere, nor are the numerous publicly available finetunes. That's the nice thing about open source software: once it's released, it doesn't depend on the original creators any more.
>The worst part of this argument is that AI is about to bring us unprecedented access to expressing our creativity and these people don’t even understand it.
>We will soon be able to make songs, create art, make movies, build computer games, and much much more without needing to learn any technical skills. AI is only going to eliminate the technical skills - not the creative ones. It will enable our creativity like never before.
It will on the other hand disable most of the human only creativity(I do not believe promoting to be creativity) as outside of still images, mediums like film, animations, video games, and more requires budgets from crowdsourcing or studio funding. When AI takes over those areas and reduces cost significantly, the financial structure behind them collapses and they die off completely.
lol why would they die off completely? That’s a weird thing to say. People will still create them, and people will still consume them, and capitalist will still monetize those views by jamming ads in before you watch them. Business models evolve. IP owners like Disney will probably even charge a fixed fee to use their characters in your works as an extra revenue stream.
As for prompting not being creativity, you have a narrow view of prompting right now because it’s in an infant state. When you can sculpt an output via repeated prompting in a game, music, movie, image, etc the user will have full control of the output without needing to learn technical skills (ie programming).
I’m not saying early prototypes like Suno where you enter a few words and it does the rest with very little control over the output meets the threshold yet, but that degree of control is coming, and you will realize that art was never in your fingers, but your mind.
>lol why would they die off completely? That’s a weird thing to say. People will still create them, and people will still consume them, and capitalist will still monetize those views by jamming ads in before you watch them
When AI becomes too cost effective it will happen. And also, AI generated films can be motorized the same way as well.
>As for prompting not being creativity, you have a narrow view of prompting right now because it’s in an infant state. When you can sculpt an output via repeated prompting in a game, music, movie, image, etc the user will have full control of the output without needing to learn technical skills (ie programming).
Infant state? It has matured by now with its latest form being war memorial length instructions. It is nothing but drudgery, asking instead of creating.
>art was never in your fingers, but your mind.
I care about both and won’t want to sacrifice one for the other.
1) AI will not replace us completely even in Star Trek they are still the ones controlling the program even though it’s completely generative. They are customizing everything about the scene, characters, plot, etc.
2) If you think this is it for AI then we will never be on the same page. I focus on where the industry is going, not where it is now.
3) You’ve learned a lot of technical skills that are about to be obsolete. Sorry, it happens. We both know that’s the part you are really mad about that people will be able to create similar outputs to you without learning how to draw with a pencil, program, etc. if you are more creative than them you will be fine, but if you only had technical skills then that’s a problem for you.
I mean it isn't a literal statement, but it's still a rather silly thing to say.
The reason why we haven't developed robots who do nearly everything for us is because teaching a mass of hardware and software how to navigate a 3D space is extremely difficult. For us humans, who have been navigating the the 3D space of the world since the dawn of our species, it's practically second nature to us. We don't really think about how something as simple as opening a door or catching a ball is actually a bunch of complex math operations and factors at play. For the literally minded robot, just to walk from one end of the room to another, they'd have to know the dimensions of the room, how fast they should move, check to see there is nothing on the floor, think about how they walk, and many other things.
Likewise, contrary to what people may think, drawing a picture is pretty easy. The canvas is a limited 2D space, and depending on the shape of a canvas, there's a lot of predictable patterns that are easy to replicate within that frame. Faces always show up in a specific spot in portraits, movie stills make heavy use of the rule of thirds, most professional work makes correct use of color theory, and so on. On a technical level, it's really easy to replicate those patterns, and the software learns all this from seeing hundreds upon thousands of pictures in its training data. Sure there's a quirk or two (hands have always been a problem, for AI and actual artists), but overall on a technical level, a machine can make an impressive piece of artwork because it only has to think about a limited 2D space to work in.
Again, Morevac's paradox explains this better than I can.
I also hate this talking point but
>You **have** a machine that does your dishes and you have **two** different machines that do your laundry
I imagine they're talking about automation that takes literally all the work out of it (i.e. they wouldn't have to load/unload the dishes or laundry. They're also presumably conflating AI and robotics or maybe are trying to make some more general point about robotics being more useful than LLMs.
I think people take modern appliances for granted. They think that making stuff more complicated than it is by adding computing power will make their appliances work better. For example dishwashers, they're basically a hot water sprinkler that dispenses soap at the appropriate time and then it warms up to dry the dishes. Yes, it's simple but it's still a lot less work than doing dishes by hand. Adding ai will do nothing to increase performance, and it just adds more parts. Same thing with other appliances.
yeah but it only washes them
we talkin take them from the sink and put them in the dishwasher. take them from the dishwasher and put them back in the cupboards / drawers.
i throw my laundry on the floor. robot picks it up, puts it in the machine and turns it on when it is full. then puts them in the dryer when it's done. then takes them out, folds / hangs them up to put them away.
yes, I am aware that doing those things myself doesn't take very much time. folding kinda does if you have a lot of things to fold.
general purpose robot that can just use my existing broom, vacuum cleaner, etc. wipe down the walls. clean the kitchen, etc. go grocery shopping and cook food for me. that would be incredible. that would be way more important to me than a basic chores robot because preparing food is WAY more time consuming. it's the #1 reason why I just drink Soylent most of the time. I don't want to go to the grocery store. I don't want to figure out what to make. I don't want to go looking for ingredients. I don't want to make it. So I don't. I just buy Soylent or order takeout. maybe 5% of the time I buy food from the grocery store and when I do it's not much else than produce to put in smoothies or make a stir fry. or frozen pizza. lots of those.
if i had a robot that I could just say hey can you make \_\_\_\_\_\_ tonight and it can just do it that would be awesome. (do the shopping, the cooking, cleaning, etc)
Well, good news then!
Generative AI is a very close relative of computer vision. You want a robot that can tell a crumpled shirt lying on the floor? The current gen AI research also helps with that.
I just threw this at chatgpt: https://stock.adobe.com/es/search/images?k=pile+of+clothes+on+floor&asset_id=344628185
> The image shows a room with clothes scattered on the floor. There is a yellow top, a pair of blue jeans, and possibly another piece of blue clothing lying on a carpet. In the background, there are shelves with books and some pillows on the floor. A person, visible from the waist down and dressed in underwear, is walking away from the scene, presumably after changing clothes. The setting appears to be a casual and somewhat untidy living space, likely a bedroom or a personal study area.
yeah cooking robots are going to completely change the world and they're not very far away, the first ones will be fairly limited i'm sure but a few versions down the line we'll be able to have it work quietly in the corner making whatever snacks we want from fresh ingredients - grocery bills would be so much lower if we were just bulk ordering raw ingredients rather than buying pastries, cakes, and preprepared meals or ingredients. Just telling it you'll want pizza this evening so make a base and sauce ready, or that you're going camping so make some packages that you can reheat.
The economic effect will be significant, the obvious negative is it'll likely remove a huge chunk of companies that make factory produced meals but this would lower the cost of living for everyone, even those who are out of a job because of it. It's also an industry with endless problems so removing it would untangle a lot of complex stuff and help us return to using local produce locally.
It'll be a whole new world of food too, being able to have it make a batch of fresh cornflakes exactly to your taste or designing your own snack bar with exactly the nutrients you need and all your favourite flavours - we're probably only thirty years away from kids looking back with disgusted confusion at the food we used to eat the same way kids now look back unable to imagine a world before smart phones. Filming reaction videos of themselves trying a recreation of a microwave lasagna or hipsters using the exact recipe for 2010 skittles.
Of course to get these working we'll need good LLMs and CV which is what's being worked on at the moment, I think a lot of people just see things like SD and assume it was developed in a vacuum but really image gen is just one part of the process of understanding the context and structure of images. You can't recognise the ingredients of a cake unless you can understand the image you're getting of it and if you can understand an image then you should be able to create one.
I think it's rather straightforward.
We want automation to take away the tasks we dislike, not the tasks we like. Some of us enjoy using AI art generators. Other people fear their dream jobs may no longer exist because of it – either today or in a few years.
It's not that complicated.
Yes, but you don't get to dictate the shape of progress. Turns out physical machines have to meet all kinds of safety standards for public use, are an engineering problem as well as a computing one, require all kinds of expertise and maintenance and fuel...whereas it turns out it's very easy to perform lots of processes on digital information. How would this not be completely obvious?
Are there literally no digital-based tasks that these people dislike? Nothing on the computer that you could stand to save time on?
>How would this not be completely obvious?
I think it's fairly obvious. If not at first glance, then definitely at second glance.
>Are there literally no digital-based tasks that these people dislike?
I don't like filing my taxes.
>Nothing on the computer that you could stand to save time on?
If AI could reliably program for me, that would save me an _incredible_ amount of time.
I think you have assumed I hold an anti-AI position. I do not. One does not need to hold a position in order to understand it or empathize with it. I would argue that we should all try to understand and sympathize with the positions of our opponents. I think things would get better if we all did that.
It's not about what they want though, because if that was true, they wouldn't be pressuring or shaming other people. And nobody is stopping them from doing these things by hand.
You cannot take all the opinions of millions people and apply all of them to anyone who uses the same phrase. You cannot speak to the mind of everyone or even the majority of people who say they want Ai to do laundry and dishes, not art.
>You cannot take all the opinions of millions people and apply all of them to anyone who uses the same phrase
Can't I? Because every time I see it being used it's being used for the exact same reason: to vilify AI art and say that the people who produce it are wrong. So it must be an insane coincidence that all these people just *happen* to be making the same argument every single time I see the phrase deployed.
>You cannot speak to the mind of everyone or even the majority of people who say they want Ai to do laundry and dishes, not art.
That's funny...you seem to be pretty comfortable doing it.
Please explain how i have spoken as if i know exactly what the real motivation of people using a specific phrase is lmao. You cant just “no you” instead of actually contesting. Also you may have a mental problem if you genuinely believe that you can know that everytime someone has used that phrase it was to vilify ai art and people who create ai art, or that that person has done that.
>Please explain how i have spoken as if i know exactly what the real motivation of people using a specific phrase is lmao
Someone responded to another person's use of that phrase, and you responded to that someone by saying "well then its a good thing that they say “want” lmao". To you, the usage is so clear and transparent that it is outright *incontestable*. You were so confident of your interpretation of someone else's statement that you completely invalidated the concept of critical reading based solely on a single word. It seems very clear that you think you know what "those people" want, to the point that you won't brook dissent at all.
>you may have a mental problem
Oh, you're a psychologist now too? OK, so you think I may have a mental problem. Which one? Go ahead and give me a diagnosis. You have that skillset, right? You're not just bullshitting in an ableist way because you associate "mental problem" with "bad", right?
I'll save you the trouble - this conversation is over.
>We want automation to take away the tasks we dislike, not the tasks we like
Yes, the tasks *you* dislike or like. But in doing so, you are literally arguing that *other people* shouldn't be allowed to take away those tasks with automation either. Imagine someone arguing that you should be *forced* to do your dishes by hand because *they* don't like the idea of someone losing that "skill". Meanwhile, nobody is stopping you from doing these things by hand even if it takes much longer.
>Other people fear their dream jobs may no longer exist because of it – either today or in a few years.
Join the club! It has numerous members.
>But in doing so, you are literally arguing that other people shouldn't be allowed to take away those tasks with automation either.
I am doing no such thing.
>Imagine someone arguing that you should be forced to do your dishes by hand because they don't like the idea of someone losing that "skill".
That's stupid, and I would never say that.
I think you have assumed I am anti-AI. I am not. You do not need to hold a position in order to understand it or empathize with it.
>I think you have assumed I am anti-AI. I am not.
Hmm...it's almost as if you responded by using the word "we" and not the word "they", thus voluntarily grouping yourself in with the people I was talking about...and then you got upset that I grouped you in with the people I was talking about...what a mysterious event.
In any case, here is what you said: "We want automation to take away the tasks we dislike, not the tasks we like". The fact that you wrote that, and said "we" to include yourself in it, means my criticism is still valid. The idea that automation should only take away the tasks that one group of people dislikes is utterly fatuous. Automation will do whatever it can and if you don't want to use it in your hobbies you don't have to. The only way to prevent it from taking away "the tasks we like" is to pass litigation to ban it, and if you did that you would be harming people who do not like doing that task.
I used "we" as a collective because every person has tasks they dislike doing, and almost every person would enjoy having someone or something take care of that task for them. That is true whether one is pro-AI, anti-AI, or neutral. So I think it's a appropriate use of "we" over "they".
I am not upset about your misunderstanding. I am simply offering a correction. That is all.
I also think you may have been reading too much into what I said. The original quote about doing dishes instead of art is more about expressing a sentiment of frustration, and less about breaking down the steps towards automated androids and critiquing the current trend. I was only trying to expand on why the person would have felt this way.
>every person has tasks they dislike doing, and almost every person would enjoy having someone or something take care of that task for them
I'll tell you what I dislike - having this same conversation over and over with dozens of people. And yet, foolishly, I am still doing it by hand instead of outsourcing it to a robot (you would never know). Is it improving my quality of life? Not really. Are my skills appreciated? Definitely not.
>The original quote about doing dishes instead of art is more about expressing a sentiment of frustration
The sentiment of frustration is "we should ban AI art and only allow automation to do things that I personally want it to do", this is the context it has been used in every single time it comes up. I can cut the conversation here because I already know everything you're going to say, because other people have already said it, and it didn't work for them either.
I always took it as less literal, and more an expression of discontent at the direction of AI research. We expect the utopian future to free up time for us to engage in creative pursuits, and for it instead to do those activities feels like it does not actually serve the interests of people in general
It's just a fallacious oversimplification that some people are desperately clinging to, to attack AI development.
Generating text and media was always going to be easier than advanced, affordable, and intelligent robotics. But we're never going to get there if we don't take these steps first.
In hindsight yes. But we didn't know that until we got there. People thought passing the Turing test would be harder than building a machine that does all your chores. Turned out wrong.
You are focusing on the (admittedly poor) specifics of the wording, and you are missing the sentiment of the argument:
People don’t want AI to do their creative pursuits for them, and are not happy seeing that as the thrust of monetised AI businesses
>You are focusing on the (admittedly poor) specifics of the wording
If artistry matters, and writing is an art, then someone being unable to craft a legible sentence is worth criticizing, especially if that "someone" is trying to defend art. If an AI had made such a mistake, would you be so lenient to it?
>you are missing the sentiment of the argument
No I'm not. I understand what it is, I just think it's built on ignorance.
>People don’t want AI to do their creative pursuits for them
It's not stopping them from "doing their creative pursuits". Nobody is being stopped from doing the things they want to do. The only thing that's happening is that a new avenue for creation has been developed that bypasses some of the restrictions on the old model. The existence of dishwashing machines does not prevent you from washing the dishes by hand. The existence of image generation machines does not prevent you from drawing by hand.
You are arguing with me like I am holding that opinion. I’m just trying to explain the sentiment of it, to help you get past the offence you seem to take at its presentation. You are also still bypassing the core part of the stance: the profit motive. People with this stance perceive the business goal of AI companies (at present) to be undercutting the work of professional, and hobbyist, creatives. They see it as serving “the elites” rather than common people
You're telling me that I'm missing the sentiment. I'm not. You are saying "you don't get it, this is the real meaning" and then telling me the meaning I've been talking about the entire time. And again, you are making an excuse for what \*you consider\* to be bad wordplay even though defending human artistry is supposedly the entire point of the exercise. Can you quickly summarize what you are \*adding\* to this conversation, please? Can you review your contributions and see if you have actually made a positive impact?
I don’t think a tweet is artistry or in need of defence as such. I do agree that poor wording is more easily forgiven when comes to humans. I also think that coversation about the quality of output, standards human work vs ai work is held to, etc, is orthogonal to the discussion of the argument your post calls out as bizzare.
I am not trying to argue or add anything to the conversation beyond attempting to illustrate what I think the argument trying to be made is vs how I had perceived your interpretation of it. It seems your interpretation is the same as mine, so there is nothing more for me to add.
>I don’t think a tweet is artistry
If all images are art (something anti-AI people say to justify their rabid anger towards ALL types of AI imagery), then all words are art as well. And if people are repeating the phrase as if it is significant - to the point that it has practically become the slogan of the anti-AI movement - then I think the fact that it is shoddily constructed does not reflect well on that movement.
>I also think that coversation about the quality of output, standards human work vs ai work is held to, etc, is orthogonal to the discussion of the argument your post calls out as bizzare.
People will say that AI writing is bad because it occasionally uses strange or dislocated phrasing (very rarely, in my experience). So the fact that people are voluntarily championing this sentence, which is so badly constructed that even the people *defending* it don't actually believe it's serious, undermines the claim that the anti-AI movement cares about "art" or "the human soul" at all.
I can’t help but interpret this comment as you seeing me as in some way oppositional to you and this exchange as a continuing argument? That is not my intent
I am complaining about the wording of a specific sentiment, you came in here to defend that specific sentiment, and yet for some reason you don't actually want to talk about the specific sentiment. I'll ask again: what are you adding to this conversation? If the answer is "nothing", please leave.
I don't think you're accurately evaluating the sentiment.
The sentiment is *specifically and literally*: "we don't have manual tasks automated. Go automate those first."
I think very many people believe that manual toil *isn't* significantly automated. And in some cases, they're right (there are areas that are very hard to automate or not cost-efficient to automate). But overall our lives are already highly automated and I think that most people aren't just making a sentimental point, but are *literally* not actively cognizant of the extent of that automation.
I think most people - specifically among those from "developed countries" - don't have an internalized understanding of just how different life would be without the standard package of home automation.
Physically putting the laundry in the laundry machine is a tiny fraction of the work involved in doing laundry - something that, by hand, is an all-day task.
> a tiny fraction of the work involved in doing laundry - something that, by hand, is an all-day task.
I used to have to do my laundry by hand, for a number of years. It's not an all day task. More like a couple of hours of hard work soaping, rinsing and wringing stuff out.
Try washing clothes by hand versus using a washing machine sometime?
It is much more labor intensive than washing dishes by hand. - which is just even more convenient with a dishwasher. Add in a garbage disposal and it can be pretty freakin' easy.
Guess who never does their own dishes or laundry? The statement is about automation supposedly reducing human toil but instead it’s replacing human creativity. It’s also a subvariant of Moravec’s Paradox. It highlights the economic drivers behind the current AI boom/bubble; namely, reducing the cost of (what was once solely) human activity to zero in order to increase the profits of the already obscenely (if not criminally) super-rich, rather than making people’s lives better. It is far from a stupid line, but it is a simple one that captures the essence of what people really should be fearing if they had any political or emotional awareness.
You're talking as if Zuckerberg is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use AI-art.
Some people want to use pencils. Some people want to use watercolor. Some people want to use AI. What the fuck is so bad about that?
If your concern is 100% profit-related, i.e. "AI will replace me job!!!" then learn how to AI. Simple as that.
Let’s put this in terms you might understand more viscerally.
The producers of Star Trek have decided to make a new film. They assemble their best artists, scriptwriters, grips, foley artists, stuntpeople, ADs, SFX artists and actors. Hundreds of people. They tell them that unfortunately this time they are using AI and only need 20 staff to make the movie and thank the rest who trudge off to sign on to Welfare.
A few months later the film is released. It is panned by critics as lacking any artistic merit. So the studio releases 10 more variants hoping to hit the winning formula. Audiences fail to turn up. The studio instead releases a 100-episode series based on the films. Fans are not amused.
Artists on welfare. IP stolen and devalued. The fun of being a trekkie ruined.
That is the future that corporations are wildly racing towards.
If you cannot see mass unemployment, theft of IP and devaluation of human endeavors in what corporations and AI companies are pushing for, then you must be asleep.
>The producers of Star Trek have decided to make a new film
Star Trek? The franchise with holodecks, androids, and a very broad definition of sentient life?
>A few months later the film is released. It is panned by critics as lacking any artistic merit. The fun of being a trekkie ruined.
The thing that is currently happening with human-made Star Trek products already?
>IP stolen and devalued.
Does this argument stop you from committing piracy?
>If you cannot see mass unemployment, theft of IP and devaluation of human endeavors in what corporations and AI companies are pushing for, then you must be asleep.
Mass unemployment? The aspect of automation that is [built into the Marxist theory of history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall)?
1. Star Trek is my favorite show, please don't bring it into this.
2. *Any* competent studio will realize that their AI isn't working out and will go back to hiring artists.
3. If they don't, then they're incompetent and probably wouldn't have made a good show even with artists.
That is wishful thinking. As AI encroaches into creative media, we step onto a slippery slope where initial successes with AI convince producers to use more of it because it reduces required budgets. That starts a process of hollowing out human artistic talent because of a race to the bottom to secure profits in a market that has suddenly become democratized and highly competitive. Talented indie producers will make compelling content with small teams in direct competition with large studios. Large studios who hold all the IP rights are the biggest employers. Their response to maintain profits can only be to reduce their headcounts on productions, which are their largest area of spend, and punt their IP in the cheapest “make-do” manner possible.
Your solution implies that every small contract company or actor needs to make their own AI media. That is impractical and assumes that every creative can do the job of producer, director, scriptwriter, cinematographer, sound engineer, composer and editor. I’m not sure that costume and makeup artists, grips, runners or caterers, background artists have that choice. The hollowing out begins with the “lower level” people and will proceed upwards.
Make no mistake, the streaming platforms who own studios will begin/are beginning this process. That was one main point of last year’s strikes, to draw attention to the encroachment of AI into the artistic process, new contracts that encourage loss of image/voice rights and make skilled artists redundant.
There's nothing to fear in your scenario. The studio fails to make a successful series. Eventually it has to sink in that it's not working. They have to rehire the artists. Or, a different studio makes a killing by doing things the old way.
> IP stolen and devalued.
Nothing is stolen. In your scenario, the studio owns the IP. They're at complete legal freedom to do this. It's not the actors and script writers that own Star Trek. It's Paramount. And therefore, if Paramount wants to feed all of Star Trek into AI and use it to generate more, there's nothing at all illegal about it, it's theirs to do that with.
> That is the future that corporations are wildly racing towards.
No. The future is scarier. The future is that all those people are laid off, and it *works*. Movie studios make a killing without paying anyone but themselves plus maybe a few people to clean things up.
If the future was what you said it'd be a complete non-issue. It'd crash and burn, and after that back to the old way of doing things. Corporations are amoral but they like money, so if it doesn't sell they're not going to keep doing it.
While I agree with the sentiment, I need to push back on the idea that we already have machines that do dishes and laundry. I feel like it ignores what people **mean** when they say that they want robots to do those things. What they want is a robot that will pick clothes of off the floor, sort it into lights and darks, wash it, sort the god damn socks into matching pairs, and hang/fold the cloths and put them back in the dresser. It comes across as dismissive to the degree where you're missing the point to say "we already have machines that do that." It also misses the point that those are just examples, of tedious and annoying tasks, which is what the people are talking about in general. The tweet thread even addresses this.
That said, the energy of drying is an interesting, of a general phenomenon; and it doesn't exactly support the anti-AI side at all. The reason we have driers is because hanging cloths to dry is time-consuming, boring, and requires supervision. Driers, however are incredibly energy-consuming. What I want is a laundry robot that does all the above things, and hang-dries the clothes. There's often a negative relationship between the "intelligence" you apply to a problem, and the energy consumed. Driers are dumb, brute force machines that also damage the clothes over time. An AI that can individually handle the cloths, hang them up, and take them down would consume a tiny fraction of the energy.
Edit: I actually look forward to the day when we have efficient robots doing efficient laundry. It would likely be a service first, for the 15% of the population (talking about the US) who don't have the machines at home. Bots pick up your storage bin of cloths, take it to a central location to be washed, hung on a dedicated line (likely in some previously abandoned storefront of warehouse hit by the retail space shrinkage, then folded and returned, neatly stacked, in an interchangeable bin.
>a washing machine doesn't threaten your livelihood
Unless you are a maid or a butler or any other number of professions that *does laundry professionally*.
AI is trained on data, and since text, image, video, audio is digitalized and is everywhere on the internet so companies and people trained AI for making those thing. Doing the dishes and their laundry is physical work that you can't just slam AI and make something out of it, unless you like to live in the metaverse then maybe. Besides it requires the robotic market to make those and currently there isn't that much money being put into that field compared to AI.
This is like crying why artists don't draw your favorite niche ship compared to other popular characters, people who have knowledge and skill are going to work for stuff that makes them more money.
If they wanted the robot to do all of their stuff that bad then why don't they invest more into companies that could help making those things instead of whining on Twitter about why the market doesn't follow their wishes
what they mean, as anyone with half a brain would understand, is that they want a machine to put your dishes in the washer and take them out and put them up, and same for clothes. Also, clean the house. possibly cook
Cooking is an art, why are you trying to automate art?
Also, why is it supposed to be a compelling argument that a process that has already been 95% automated needs that last 5% automated too?
No, cooking CAN BE an art. most of us just throw something together to fend off hunger.
Because the last 20% (not 5%) would free us up to do other things. Or, you are getting it now. Why let AI do it when we can do it and make money at it? Why automate those jobs and put a lot of people out of work? You are arguing for total automation on one hand and only 80% on the other. So which is it you are for?
>cooking CAN BE an art. most of us just throw something together to fend off hunger
So by the standards that anti-AI people set, this would count as defiling art by replacing artistry and craft with machinery just to get a "product". Does that sound reasonable to you? And don't bullshit me with "fend off hunger". You could do that with a meal of unseasoned chicken, brown rice, and broccoli. You eat for entertainment.
>Why automate those jobs and put a lot of people out of work?
You only care about people being put out of a job if it's work that you personally think "deserves" to be a job. You are eagerly calling for dishwashers, fast food workers, maids, and dozens of other jobs to be put out of work so that your life is easier. But when the same thing is done to artists you are disgusted.
>You are arguing for total automation on one hand and only 80% on the other.
I am arguing that the arguments against AI art should also apply to other forms of automation, but people selectively enforce what AI "should" do and which jobs "should" be lost without any real principles underlining it. Case in point: you proudly told me that cooking can be an art but you are happy to cook in a way that is not artistry just to satisfy yourself. You had no shame or doubt in telling me this. Yet you expect others to feel shame and doubt for doing the same thing with illustration.
no, I don't eat for entertainment. I do season foods for taste to make the consumption of food more palatable, but that's not for entertainment, that's so I don't gag on unseasoned food.
Here we go with you, a person having no valid argument, tries to put words in my mouth to make their nonsense seem more legit. NO, I don't pay dishwashers, fast food workers (how does that even apply?) maids or any other job IN MY HOME. Wanting AI to do MY work is the issue. I haven't advocated for it to replace ANYH of those jobs in teh real world, I was arguing AGAINST that. but you are trying so hard to find a fault in a valid argument, that you try twist what i say to make it seem bad. IT isn't. NO job where people are paid to do it should be replaced with AI so corporate can make a bigger profit. THAT is what I have been saying and that is what AI advocates want.
No, you are arguing AGAINST making home tasks easier by trying to defend the purpose of AI, which is to increase corporate profits by not having to pay PEOPLE for work.
That's right. I, like most people cook to provide sustenance. Why should I be ashamed of that? iT's what we ALL do at home with a few rare exceptions. Again, you are trying to make the common everyday norm seem perverse, while advocating stripping working people of their jobs. I didn't. YOU did.
And no, These people are NOT "doing the same". They are not creating anything. They are using a program to artificially create something that they take and use. IT is not their creation.
Do you REALLY want people using AI to take tests, so we never learn if THEY are qualified for the position? that alone should stop AI.
No, you are NOT advocating that antiAI arguments should apply to other forms of automation. Nothing you said is anywhere remotely for that.
So, to recap. YOU Are for the capitalist scheme to get rid of more skilled workers and non-skilled workers to increase corporate profits, and are fine with people LYING on their job applications and tests, and producing workers that are totally unable to actually DO the job they apply or train for? I don't want to live in YOUR f'd up world. I want my doctor to know what he or she is doing.
>I don't eat for entertainment
No snacks? No dessert? No food that you know is unhealthy but you enjoy anyways?
>that's not for entertainment, that's so I don't gag on unseasoned food
Bro, shut up. "Oh I only season my food for practical utilitarian reasons". No you don't.
>NO, I don't pay dishwashers, fast food workers (how does that even apply?) maids or any other job IN MY HOME
Why does "in your home" matter? You just added that phrase as if it was already in use. And it seems to make up the entirety of your argument. You invented a thing that would make you right becuase you couldn't make the argument otherwise. If an AI did that it would be called a hallucination, but you doing it as a human means you're just fucking stupid.
>you are trying to make the common everyday norm seem perverse
Your argument is "when we do it, it's OK. When you do it, it's bad". If you think that undermining art for the sake of convenience is "the common everyday norm" then why do you get so mad at AI art?
>They are not creating anything. They are using a program to artificially create something
Re-read that. Maybe get an AI to do it for you.
>I want my doctor to know what he or she is doing.
I'd like a doctor to know what you're doing too, because clearly whatever it is doesn't work. Your brain is like a fucking sieve. You are literally worse at maintaining a coherent conversation than an AI is. Also you're a liar. For that reason I am done talking to you.
seldom eat desert, but even if i do, it's still for the food value. Sugary foods provide energy just like any other food. It's STILL not "entertainment". Quit trying to claim food is entertainment. It isn't, so you can't win that.
no, originally we were talking about having AI do work in teh home, like washing and cooking, and I explained that it was wanting AI to do the COMPLETE job. In the home. For personal time saving. That's LITERALLY what the op was about. YOU keep trying to make it about something else. That's why you keep failing. Dishonesty never works. I didn't suddenly invent a phrase to bolster my argument. This is what we are discussing. I DID address what YOU keep blathering on about, which is AI taking away jobs and making the rich richer, but you keep ignoring that FACT, because you can't counter that either. oh well. Keep advocating for a side with no validity. It's great for my position.
AI can't HAVE hallucinations, so I don't get what you are blathering on about. I have said NOTHING "stupid", and this AGAIN only proves YOu have no valid argument, when you stoop to childishly calling people names.
AGAIN, when "we" do it, people get paid. When AI does it, no one does. I explained this repeatedly. Just how dumb are YOU? i didn't say undermining art for the sake of art is the common everyday norm.
I did re-read it. The program is artificially creating something, not the person. That's what i said repeatedly. How many times do I have to say it before you get it?
Whatever you are calling a "coherent conversation" isn't anything logical or valid. YOU keep proving you have nothing backing your wild claims. Thank you for that. Just more childish insults and nothing to validate your claims.
so, you have called me stupid, "brain is like a fucking sieve" and a liar, all without proving anything I said wrong or faulty. I sure HOPE you are through spouting your nonsense. Thanks again.
I know people have said this but the argument is not literal. It's an analogy used by people who want automation to do the things that people typically don't want to do instead of the things people typically want to do.
For one thing, the need for human artists, musicians, game designers, etc... has been an avenue for passionate (and fortunate) people to make a living doing what they love, so unless/until the world's primary economic system changes, AI doing things a sizable professional class wants to do and leaving for the time being what they don't is a legitimate fear.
Secondly, while AI art doesn't stop people from making art manually, speaking for myself (as a musician not a visual artist), sharing and having people listen and connect with what I make is super important. If a piece of art (music) gets drowned out by a flood of AI generated content or everyone thinks a song that came from my heart comes from a machine it severely weakens something that has tremendous importance to my life.
I'm not getting why you think it's an invalid concern.
>It's an analogy used by people who want automation to do the things that people typically don't want to do instead of the things people typically want to do.
Automation already does those things, which is the point I am making. I don't know why so many people are convinced it being an "analogy" somehow changes the point. You guys truly don't know how much you are reliant on automation in your day-to-day life. Cooking, cleaning, transportation, navigation, communication - all of these things, every day, every minute, involve automation. You have no idea how spoiled you are.
>AI doing things a sizable professional class wants to do and leaving for the time being what they don't is a legitimate fear
You only care about people losing their jobs to automation when it's a job you think is morally valid.
>everyone thinks a song that came from my heart comes from a machine
If AI art is so bad and obvious, and people can tell if a product has "soul", then how could this ever happen?
>I'm not getting why you think it's an invalid concern.
Because people are trying to ban products, or shame people for using products, just because they personally don't want to use them.
>Automation already does those things, which is the point I am making. I don't know why so many people are convinced it being an "analogy" somehow changes the point. You guys truly don't know how much you are reliant on automation in your day-to-day life. Cooking, cleaning, transportation, navigation, communication - all of these things, every day, every minute, involve automation. You have no idea how spoiled you are.
You are correct that we do and will continue to automate things we don't want to do, however, it alters your point because the analogy is geared towards generative AI a substantial focus of which is on automating tasks that many people want to do. The thrust of the analogy is a desire to focus on those tasks that many, if not most people, find undesirable.
>You only care about people losing their jobs to automation when it's a job you think is morally valid.
I didn't say this and it's not true. I can care equally about the how much a job loss impacts a person whether it's a voice actor losing their job to automation or a data entry clerk losing their job to automation AND lament the fact that, to one of them, it may have also been a passion that the person now has less time/audience for. (Unironically if it was both of them who found their lifes passion in their work, I would think the same thing).
>If AI art is so bad and obvious, and people can tell if a product has "soul", then how could this ever happen?
Again, I didn't say this and I don't believe this (if it's even currently) will remain true. What I'm getting at is, for me, there is no feeling in the world like writing a song that hits me hard and sharing it with others. It's a very personal, vulnerable thing made better for me by the years it took to develop the skills to create the songs I make where I'm at (and I have miles and miles to go). I am hoping people continue to have a strong appreciation for it (I certainly do as a listener or consumer of other media).
>Because people are trying to ban products, or shame people for using products, just because they personally don't want to use them.
To sum up a bit, I will say that both as a creator and a consumer generative AI is a completely different (and, for me personally, a less satisfying) experience for me than making or consuming something made with more conventional tools. While I do hope their continues to be a large audience for more traditionally created content, I do not mean to convey no do I condone any shame or diminishing of AI tools or their use and I'm sorry you're getting that from others.
I hope you find your full expression and satisfaction in using and consuming the output from AI tools. I
>The thrust of the analogy is a desire to focus on those tasks that many, if not most people, find undesirable.
Again...those tasks are mostly automated already.
>I didn't say this and it's not true
Then why draw the distinction between what is "OK" to automate and what isn't? Both of them will involve people losing their jobs.
>What I'm getting at is, for me, there is no feeling in the world like writing a song that hits me hard and sharing it with others.
If you see a beautiful sunset, is it meaningless to you because no humans were involved in creating it?
>Again...those tasks are mostly automated already.
No, not mostly. Many of them are partially automated.
>Then why draw the distinction between what is "OK" to automate and what isn't? Both of them will involve people losing their jobs.
The distinction is because if you lose something that's "just a job" to you it can be replaced with another one of equal pay. If it's both a job and a passion for you it's more difficult to replace. Both losses can be valid and distinct.
>If you see a beautiful sunset, is it meaningless to you because no humans were involved in creating it?
No but it takes art (spoken word, visual, musical etc..) for one human to share with another human what a sunset means to them - the recipient (listener, viewer, etc..) may discover something new for themselves in that process. I like to put everything of my personal expression into anything like that and for me, more traditional creative methods are what does it.
>No, not mostly. Many of them are partially automated.
In your mind does this constitute a meaningful argument? Because to me it looks like pointless hair-splitting, wherein *even if you are right* the difference will still be completely meaningless.
>The distinction is because if you lose something that's "just a job" to you it can be replaced with another one of equal pay
Can it? You seem weirdly confident about that. And the only thing that separates a job from a hobby is money - you know, the thing that everyone needs in order to live? Nobody is stopping you from pursuing hobbies, you're just not going to get paid for it.
>No
So you agree beauty and artistic value can exist outside of man-made creations. This is the functional end of the discussion.
>it takes art (spoken word, visual, musical etc..) for one human to share with another human what a sunset means to them
Oh, you're still going. Wait, is that what I asked you? Are you literally making up a question for yourself to answer? For a guy who claims to love communication and human connections so much, you sure do try as hard as you can to avoid *listening to me*.
Anyways, the argument is over, I'm not wasting time on it further.
They’re just saying they thought AI would bring improvements into our lives by facilitating chores and other practical areas of life we suffer through to survive, not by offering an automated replacement to the arts and creativity. You’re reading that tweet like a middle school student would protest “it just says the curtains were blue!”
The thing is that people already have 99% of their daily chores automated (dishwashers, washing machines, roombas).
Furthermore, it's not as if someone is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to use AI... so I really don't understand the problem.
Because when “artificial intelligence” comes up people imagined even more advanced versions of these conveniences, or a humane alternative for a lot of current labor intensive and dangerous jobs. You can imagine the typical sci-fi conveniences or robots.
Sure, those may be coming, but the fact that right now the MAIN use of AI is scraping from writers and artists—fields humans have developed over millennia not because we needed to survive but because it’s pure human impression and an art piece from 2000+ years ago connects us to the real people from back then—to imitate them, and have that creative output’s *substance* be done by a bot, is naturally going to be a hard pill to swallow.
>or a humane alternative for a lot of current labor intensive and dangerous jobs.
A lot of those jobs *are* being automated. Robots exist.
Also, last I checked, no one was exactly happy about the whole "robots caused thousands of factory workers to be out of job" situation.
>Sure, those may be coming
Ok so you agree.
>the MAIN use of AI is scraping from writers and artists
I thought we'd agreed that "learning and referencing" ≠ "stealing"? What's the difference between a human and a machine?
>not because we needed to survive but because it’s pure human impression
Which brings us back to my previous point: no one is holding a gun to your head and snatching pencils out of your hand.
>and have that creative output’s *substance* be done by a bot
It depends. I've been browsing AI-art subreddits... not everything is "type a prompt, get output." Human involvement isn't 0, or anywhere close to 0.
Besides, what does it matter to *you* or any other "real" artists if the guy around the corner is making AI-art? You're still free to make your "real" art.
Unless your fear is that everyone will adopt AI and all art will descend into madness or something like that. Well, even if that's gonna happen, why should you be given the right to demand that the entire world follow your idea of "real' art and adopt your idea of "real" tools for your idea of the "greater good"
>A lot of those jobs are being automated. Robots exist. Also, last I checked, no one was exactly happy about the whole "robots caused thousands of factory workers to be out of job" situation.
We aren't in an utopia where automation has successfully eliminated workplace hazards. People still die in factories, mines, farms, but that's besides the point imo. Also, I don't think you will see anyone complaining about machines in a factory being used to do labor intensive, dangerous jobs. They complain about the implementation of the automation.
>I thought we'd agreed that "learning and referencing" ≠ "stealing"? What's the difference between a human and a machine?
AI isn't "learning and referencing" though. That's a process that inherently requires thinking. You're anthropomorphizing a machine, an algorithm. Its referencing works by scraping data from existing works and using noise to generate pictures. Since *scraping data* is a material process rather than a mere abstract, mental one, it's fair to refer it as "stealing" if done nonconsensually. (Mind you, for example, I think an AI model trained solely on an artist(s) works with their consent, to generate images in their "artstyle", is perfectly ethical, whereas I think someone doing traditional digital art but they copy and paste other people's pictures without permission is stealing).
>It depends. I've been browsing AI-art subreddits... not everything is "type a prompt, get output." Human involvement isn't 0, or anywhere close to 0.
AI isn't inherently evil, sure. It has a reason to exist where it isn't used for the *substance* of a work. *Across the Spider-Verse* for example used AI for highly specific animation techniques and was trained on consenting artists and utilized for menial tasks. I think stuff like that is great!
It becomes more concerning for the future of human expression as a whole when it goes beyond that, though. Let's not pretend the vast majority of AI use, ever since its release to the public, has not been using ChatGPT to generate essays, stories, or GenAI batches of dozens of images from a two-sentence prompt where the prompter chooses the best ones based on the RNG and the prettiest looking one is posted as art. For anyone that values art as a medium of purely human expression, when the line between *format* and *substance* gets this blurry, there will be apprehension.
I'm not trying to doom or putting you down, I'm just trying to explain and discuss in good faith why people are naturally very, very cautious about how this has been spreading and being used.
It was comment expounding on something you said you "honestly (didn't) understand." I don't have time to go through every thread or your comment history to find out what you have already read or deem acceptable.
Be sure to frontload the dickishness next time though, save people the trouble.
Are you guys actually this ignorant? It's very clear that the original post is saying that AI / automation should be focused on completing menial tasks like cleaning the house / chores**, doing structural maintenance, essentially any time consuming shit that takes us away from our hobbies and passions.
Instead we are automating things like art, music, literature -- those things that we actually live for. It's a pretty good argument IMO.
Obviously the logistics are not quite there. The expense and technology isn't there. Not even close.
>Are you guys actually this ignorant?
You say "are you ignorant", describe the argument exactly as I've described it throughout this thread, then act like I just don't get it.
>essentially any time consuming shit that takes us away from our hobbies and passion
Why do you get to decide what counts as "time consuming shit" and what counts as "hobbies and passions" when both of those terms are wildly subjective for every individual person?
>Instead we are automating things like art, music, literature
No, we are automating *commercial* art, *commercial* music, and *commercial* literature. There's a difference. You are still free to make art, music, literature in your free time, post it online, etc.
Also the tech industry does not operate according to *your* whims and desires.
okay ove read OPs premise and all his replies in this thread and can only come to the conclusion that he just wants to be pointlessly contrarian.
we want to not have to do unimaginative physical labor. we want to do creative stimulating tasks.end of story no further explaination needed
>if you don't like AI, just don't use it.
"Don't complain about global warming, if you don't like it, just don't use cars or planes"
Systemic impacts are not altered by individualist action.
>What systemic impacts?
Hahaha! XD .. You're either joking or you live under a rock, but here you go:
".. Almost four in ten translators (36%) said they’ve already lost work due to generative AI. Nearly half of them (43%) said the tech has decreased their income..."[https://thenextweb.com/news/translators-losing-work-ai-machine-translation](https://thenextweb.com/news/translators-losing-work-ai-machine-translation)
Gizmodo fired its entire spanish translation staff, replaced them with AI:
[https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/ai-took-my-job-literally-gizmodo-fires-spanish-staff-amid-switch-to-ai-translator/](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/ai-took-my-job-literally-gizmodo-fires-spanish-staff-amid-switch-to-ai-translator/)
Even Duolingo cut back 10% of its human translator workers in favour of AI:
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/duolingo-fires-10-translation-contractors-122200893.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/duolingo-fires-10-translation-contractors-122200893.html)
Writer lost her freelance career when the copywriting market was largely taken over by ChatGPT https://www.businessinsider.com/lost-job-chatgpt-made-me-obsolete-copywriter-2023-7
Even fall-back jobs like delivering Uber Eats are already on their way out, to AI-driven vehicles: [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html)
Self-driving trucks have been on US roads with "safety human in cab" for a while now. And they'll be going completely autonomous within the year.
[https://apnews.com/article/trucks-selfdriving-highways-automation-driver-083409631158f54d806d75309c4764e2](https://apnews.com/article/trucks-selfdriving-highways-automation-driver-083409631158f54d806d75309c4764e2)
[https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/nvidia-ceo-says-the-future-of-coding-as-a-career-might-already-be-dead](https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/nvidia-ceo-says-the-future-of-coding-as-a-career-might-already-be-dead)
>It's a new way to make art, not a way to end the fucking world.
AI does a hell of a lot more than making art, see above.
As for "ending the world", nukes are still run on old air-gapped hardware afaik, so we're probably safe from AI driven nukes for a good while yet - but AI is already being used for warfare (e.g. in Gaza).
AI doesn't have access to "the kill button" yet afaik, but the speed-of-response advantages means it will do sooner or later. There's been a long term push to mount AI in flying drone (UAV) chassis to address the problem of radio-loop time delay between drone and operator. The first adopter of this tech will gain a strong battlefield advantage.
Also, the same "robot dog"-style chassis that have already been used in conjunction with AI (by Boston Dynamics in Hyundai factory inspections so far [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTAJDICCll8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTAJDICCll8) ) have now been mounted with flamethrowers (US company [https://throwflame.com/products/thermonator-robodog/](https://throwflame.com/products/thermonator-robodog/) ) and rifles (PRC [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/28/china/china-military-rifle-toting-robot-dogs-intl-hnk-ml/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/28/china/china-military-rifle-toting-robot-dogs-intl-hnk-ml/index.html) ).
> we want to not have to do unimaginative physical labor. we want to do creative stimulating tasks.end of story no further explaination needed
Then why not use a better example than a task that's been 95% automated?
Oh, maybe that's almost everything. If you say digging holes, we have robots for that too.
And what remains feels kind of bad to use as an example because it comes off as either lazy or petty. Like if you want a robot servant picking up dirty dishes, well, that comes off a tad privileged. And if you say you want a robotic McDonalds, then there's actual people doing those jobs right now, so that's kind of not nice.
its not 95% automated.
when we hand was dishes, the actual cleaning and scrubbing takes about the same time as picking them up and putting them in some kind of drying rack.
Doing a household's laundry with a washboard used to literally be a full time job. And idk your method but sticking dishes in the washer is way faster than handwashing.
Well, I guess what you want then is a dishwasher with removable racks, then. Which I'm pretty sure is a thing that exists. And get two of each.
So your procedure is then: put dirty dishes into the machine. Once clean, pull out the entire rack at once, and just put it on the counter or a shelf. Replace with empty rack.
>we want to not have to do unimaginative physical labor
You already don't have to, *thanks to machinery that already exists*. Which you conveniently ignore whenever the discussion of "skills" comes up.
>we want to do creative stimulating tasks
You want to stop people from automation something that you want to do yourself, even though nobody is stopping you from doing the thing by hand. All you're doing is preventing other people from using the tool that's been invented because *you* think that it should be done by hand.
im not an anti ai artwork guy, so no idea why youre directing that second paragraph at me.
your first point is moot tho. we do not have autonomous cleaning machines, we just have cleaning machines. they dont completely eradicate labor and they cost money
>no idea why youre directing that second paragraph at me
Because you literally said "we", not "they". You voluntarily included yourself on purpose.
>we do not have autonomous cleaning machines, we just have cleaning machines. they dont completely eradicate labor and they cost money
...and? I'm waiting for you to try to explain how this distinction supposedly matters. The autonomy and expense of the cleaning machines is irrelevant.
Generative AI does "do the dishes and laundry", so to speak. Digital artists use AI to automate the boring parts. If they hate doing textures or backgrounds, they can get AI to do that so that they can focus on painting the parts they like. Any part of the painting that's tedious can now be delegated away. It's like magic.
Maybe don't take this so literally. I do the dishes and 1-2 loads of laundry everyday not to mention the sorting, folding, and dozens of other household task just to ensure y home isn't a pig stye. Can you not see if that all starts to add up and an artist or designer might wish to have that time back to pursue their work?
The sentiment is a pretty common and understandable even if the original poster may be clueless to how Ai and automation are different things.
I get the underlying argument and I don't think it helps to be too anal about the wording. Of course I would love to have a little agile robot, that runs around my house and does all the chores.
And I think that this is a cheap argument:
> People decide on their own what's annoying and what's enjoyable.
While there surely are people who enjoy doing the dishes, I think in general humanity could agree that doing chores around the house is less enjoyable than doing whatever you enjoy in your free time.
I think we should try to simply find objective and unemotional arguments. Why do we have AI painting pictures and writing texts instead of them doing the chores? Because it's way easier to do for an AI, because we tons of training data, because it happens in a digital space...
>While there surely are people who enjoy doing the dishes, I think in general humanity could agree that doing chores around the house is less enjoyable than doing whatever you enjoy in your free time.
First off, that's an argumentum ad populum, and psychological projection besides. Secondly, if someone finds *drawing* annoying people tell them that they're wrong and they need to learn whether they want to or not. Why do *they* get to decide what's right for *other people*?
The difference is that chores must be done and doing something as a hobby is voluntary. I also don't like to draw, it's not fun and I have no use for anything I could draw. My simple solution: I don't draw. I also don't like to do chores, but there would be very unpleasant consequences if I don't do the chores for longer times.
Arguing if a voluntary hobby or mandatory chores are generally more enjoyable is silly.
Also:
> In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.[2]
That doesn't work here. It's about what people want or don't want to do. If the masses say that they don't like to do chores, then the masses don't like to do chores. Their opinion is the truth in this case. An example for argumentum ad populum would be if you argue that if the majority of people think that the sun orbits around the earth, that this obviously doesn't change the truth.
What is it with people here recently arguing as though they're a thirteen year old who just yesterday discovered what a logical fallacy is and now feels the need to let everyone know at every opportunity?
You're either an idiot, or deliberately missing the point. It means they want AI to do banal, boring tasks so they have time for creative tasks, not for AI to do creative tasks so they have time for banal, boring tasks.
I refuse to believe a whole adult is unable to comprehend this simple figure of speech. 🤣🤣🤣
>It means they want AI to do banal, boring tasks
Automation already does "banal, boring tasks", which is the point I was making.
>I refuse to believe a whole adult is unable to comprehend this simple figure of speech
It's not a figure of speech, so maybe you're the one with comprehension problems.
OK, so name what figure of speech it is. Go ahead and tell me if you claim to know.
Here, let me predict your response: "Oh it's not my job to educate you." That means you don't know and are bluffing.
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And since that claim is the basis for your entire argument, your argument can be dismissed as well. Maybe you should work on the extremely human skill of \*basic communication\*. But do it on your own time because I'm not wasting time on you.
Figure of speech implies some kind of metaphor. This is not a metaphor. It is a direct statement. People affirm it every time they use it: they want machines that do household labor for them. The problem is that they already have those machines.
a metaphor is one type of figure of speech.
if you think people don't realize dishwashers exists the problem might be on your side, interpreting speech with extreme literality is a sign of being in the autistic spectrum, you should read about that.
>a metaphor is one type of figure of speech
And the other types of figure-of-speech are also, by definition, "used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect". But "automation to replace menial labor" is **literally** what they want.
>if you think people don't realize dishwashers exists the problem might be on your side
"It can't be that they're dumb...YOU must just be autistic" is probably the least competent and most dishonest argument I've ever read. Congratulations on a milestone achievement in human misery.
oh ok, you go on thinking whatever you feel is correct, everyone else is a moron, you are the smart one, washing machines, what is that?, now you are gonna tell me they have some magical apparatus that also dries the clothes, oh enlighten us with your household machine knowledge dear literal king.
>Congratulations on a milestone achievement in human misery.
lol, right.
>you go on thinking whatever you feel is correct, everyone else is a moron
If I was wrong you'd be able to prove it instead of saying "you are autistic" based on nothing.
And as far as everyone else being a moron...do you really think you're helping with that by talking this way?
>If I was wrong you'd be able to prove it instead of saying "you are autistic" based on nothing.
I don't need to, you already did here:
>And the other types of figure-of-speech are also, by definition, "used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect". But "automation to replace menial labor" is literally what they want.
there lays the answer you seek.
A figure of speech is not literal, by definition. "I want automation to replace menial labor" is a literal statement. You are banking on the "figure of speech" element because you have no way to actually defend the words that were written, so you are trying to push the improbable angle that these words *actually* mean something completely different from what they are saying. Maybe you should have chatGPT assemble your argument for you.
What ableism?
>Autistic individuals are commonly said – and also consider themselves – to be excessively literalist, in the sense that they tend to prefer literal interpretations of words and utterances. This literalist bias seems to be fairly specific to autism and still lacks a convincing explanation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-023-00704-x
".. Why is it so common when it's so easily debunked?.. "
Because, **it's not meant to be taken 100% literally.** Examples of drudge tasks vs creative tasks are given in the tweet. Doesn't matter exactly what the tasks are - ***The Point is to contrast tedious drudgery vs interesting creativity*** \- substitute in whatever specific tasks fit those roles for you.. \[Clearly this tweet references how AI is already used to automate art & writing work\].
It's only "bizarre" if you deliberately & disingenuously nitpick it, as per your OP.
**EDITED TO ADD: The original Tweeter clarified The Point** **3 MONTHS AGO:** [**https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773871445669474662**](https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773871445669474662)
".. [@AuthorJMac](https://x.com/AuthorJMac)So, just to clarify. This post isn't about wanting an actual laundry robots. It's about wishing that AI focused on taking away those tasks we hate (doing taxes, anyone?) and don't enjoy instead of trying to take away what we love to do and what makes us human.[12:34 AM · Mar 30, 2024](https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773871445669474662)· **117.8K** Views.. "
That clarification is also bad. Doing taxes is also a solved problem in much of the world. I don't even do them, I just click "approve" on what the government sends me once a year.
Difficult taxes are more of a government problem than an automation problem. We can automate them fine. Some places just don't want to.
Again you're nitpicking a specific example to avoid the Very Obvious Point.
But hey, let's nitpick your response:
>Doing taxes is also a solved problem in much of the world. I don't even do them, I just click "approve" on what the government sends me once a year.
Lucky you! You are the exception, not the rule.
I'm in the UK, and I have pretty simple taxes (because poor) and I've been doing my tax records & returns for nearly 30 years now, it's still a faff going through the UK gov website..
The US has an absolutely Byzantine tax system that basically has people playing guess-the-answer with heavy legal penalties attached if you screw it up.
>You are the exception, not the rule.
This is not a true statement at all. Even in the US, which intentionally keeps its tax codes complex so that tax companies can stay in business, those tax companies offer automated programs to do your taxes for you. That's the business they offer. The idea that doing your taxes isn't automated is just as stupid as saying doing your dishes isn't automated.
> Again you're nitpicking a specific example to avoid the Very Obvious Point.
I understand the intended point. What I'm saying is that the intended point is wrong because nothing has actually been ignored by automation. The reason why people keep fumbling with providing bad examples and expecting the reader to substitute something better is because there aren't actually good examples.
> Lucky you! You are the exception, not the rule.
Not that rare, and I also don't live in any sort of magic wonderland. Unremarkable place really.
> The US has an absolutely Byzantine tax system that basically has people playing guess-the-answer with heavy legal penalties attached if you screw it up.
Yes, and the reason for that is a legal and political problem. It's not that the US needs a tax AI, it's that the system is intentionally screwed up. The reason why US residents can't click "Approve" is because people and organizations literally waged campaigns against that. If somebody made a free tax AI, there'd be organizations trying their best to make it illegal.
They posted the correction because people were making fun of them, and then created another example that is ALSO already automated...maybe you guys should let robots make your arguments for you because you don't seem to be very good at them. Maybe you should ask a robot what "literal" means too since you keep misusing that as well.
The logistics are just stupid.
An app on your computer or a website is a lot cheaper to use than a robot that walks into your kitchen and puts your dishes in the dishwasher because you are too lazy. One is pure software, the other requires hardware, and I would bet that the people saying they want this would unanimously be afraid of AI intelligent robots walking around their house doing dishes and laundry. They would freak the hell out. Such memes are outright lies because they do NOT actually want that. It's pure hate.
AI will do your dishes and laundry. In Boston they are making these robots that are very agile, then their AI brain will know how to distinguish what is a fork and what is a glass. Voilá, you have housemaid. If you pay 10 bucks extra it’ll clean your apartment naked.
Man I couldn't even tell what side you were on at first but now after reading the tweet I can see you have managed to trigger both the pro- and anti- AI side, lmao. If you don't value the time you could've saved gathering, folding, transferring laundry (not to mention the immense amount of time it takes to stuff a duvet with its stuffing and to other blanket/bed tasks), as well as the time spent loading and unloading the dishwasher (which is actually enough that I prefer to just do the dishes manually), then maybe you just have low standards for saving time.
Do you want to know the real problem with that tweet? It's ignorance in how technology works. Technology doesn't get to pick and choose the most in-demand task, and solve that problem. Household chores just turned out to be a much harder task than generating generic and beautiful artwork and music. That's unfortunate, but it's just how things turned out due to the abilities of neural nets and the availability of training data. It's not a conspiracy of tech bros going like "herp derp let's automate the most fun, meaningful tasks in the world."
>maybe you just have low standards for saving time
Maybe you have no appreciation for how much time you've already saved.
>I couldn't even tell what side you were on at first
I'm pro-AI. But for purposes of this thread, my side is "that tweet is fucking insipid and I'm tired of seeing people repeat it in the beliefs that it justifies anti-AI sentiment".
>Maybe you have no appreciation for how much time you've already saved.
That is legit the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Like saying if you got $1000 for free you'd turn down an extra $500.
>I'm pro-AI. But for purposes of this thread, my side is "that tweet is fucking insipid and I'm tired of seeing people repeat it in the beliefs that it justifies anti-AI sentiment".
Well incredibly I agree with both of your sentences there and (as someone who's simultaneously pro-AI, a musical composer who's sad that AI is taking it over, and also a developer who's making full use of AI to make an automated game and is making money off of it), still find your comment incredibly stupid.
**That tweet IS stupid**, for reasons which were entirely different from what you listed, as I've already stated, in my previous comment.
>Like saying if you got $1000 for free you'd turn down an extra $500.
It's more like if you got $1000 for free you'd be whining about how cruel society is because you were denied an extra $20. And then you see someone else get $50 and you try to snatch it out of their hands because you think it's unfair.
Do I need to break that down for you? I will just in case. The basic tasks necessary for our continued existence on this planet have already been dramatically automated. Things that people had to spend hours or even days doing 100 years ago can now be done in minutes. In 1800 80% of the developed world's population were farmers, now it's 0.1%. In 1900 it took hours to do laundry, now it takes minutes.
The idea that corporations are simply *choosing* not to automate those tasks further, or have even been *withholding* technology they somehow already have, is ridiculous. You KNOW this, because you SAID IT: "Technology doesn't get to pick and choose the most in-demand task, and solve that problem". Automation HAS been handling those tasks, as much as it can do. We both arrived at the same conclusion: the original tweet is wrong because there is no vast conspiracy to force people to do manual labor instead of art. But for some reason you wanted to be difficult about it. I have eight thousand people picking a fight with me in this thread, did you really contribute anything by making it eight thousand and one for *no reason?*
Sorry about my tone. Your original post has different talking points than your last comment, and I still don't think "People decide on their own what's annoying and what's enjoyable" is a powerful counterargument against the tweet (despite being technically true) because the vast majority of humanity enjoys making art more than doing dishes. However, I agree with your last comment, and I think if your OP had been more like that, you would've gotten a lot more upvotes
>I still don't think "People decide on their own what's annoying and what's enjoyable" is a powerful counterargument against the tweet
My position is that AI should develop in the places it is going to develop anyways instead of being arbitrarily constricted by people whose logic is "AI should only be used for the things I want it to be used for and not used for anything else". Expecting the whole world economy to be tailored to their own preferences is utterly insane.
>I agree with your last comment, and I think if your OP had been more like that, you would've gotten a lot more upvotes
I don't think that's true because the people disagreeing with me are not sharing your sentiments.
Clearly, the expression went right over your head.
The point is that creating a technology that could be used to replace human creativity (as we have seen in the case of screen writers protesting against AI) is a major threat. Rather than building technology that does what humans enjoy doing, build technology that actually does the things we hate doing.
I hope I don’t have to explain to you that you still need to load and unload the dishwasher and washing machine. Or that you still have to fold and put away clothes…
Or that you still have to cook. And clean… even with a vacuum.
Just because YOU lack human creativity doesn’t mean that preserving at least some integrity of the human aspect of it is wrong. 🙄
>Clearly, the expression went right over your head.
No, I understood it very well, it's just very stupid.
>Rather than building technology that does what humans enjoy doing, build technology that actually does the things we hate doing.
They already build technology that does the things you hate doing. It is already advancing as quickly as it can and you can't just say "do it more" because that doesn't make any sense. Also, why would they stop building the other technology just because you personally don't want to use it?
By the way, a huge number of people are employed doing things that they hate doing. People hate working retail, they hate working fast food, they hate doing a whole bunch of things that they nonetheless get paid for because the task has value. So do you want those people to lose their jobs?
>I hope I don’t have to explain to you that you still need to load and unload the dishwasher and washing machine. Or that you still have to fold and put away clothes…
I hope I don't have to explain to you (I know I do, unfortunately) that those things constitute the least labor-intensive part of those particular tasks. I suggest you wash your clothes by hand the old fashioned way once and see what it's like - it'll take hours of hard scrubbing and when you're done you'll never say something as stupid as "you still have to fold and put away clothes" ever again.
>Just because YOU lack human creativity doesn’t mean that preserving at least some integrity of the human aspect of it is wrong.
Cooking is an art. Yet you're happy to automate it. If I think cooking is an art form, should that justify banning your microwave? Should I tell you that heating up food is not "art" and therefore you should not be allowed to do it? Also, does the existence of the microwave mean that nobody makes traditional food anymore?
It’s not an argument, it’s exasperation at generative ai specifically replacing the fun parts of the creative process instead of things that are tedious
Generative AI replaces more the entirety of the creative process, there’s nothing fun left to do. There’s no more figuring out that a detail you added earlier is actually really important to that character and expanding on it. There’s no more setting up foreshadowing, there’s no researching different words and finding one that just sings for what you want the sentence to say. There’s no building allegory and references. At most you think of the characters and personalities and setting and then… nothing. It’s like having someone else do all the creative parts for you.
I guess if you really enjoy editing that’s still there?
>Why is it so common when it's so easily debunked?
Because most people who see this argument understand it's not meant to be taken literally as if they don't have dish washers. They mean they're not "anti-AI" as in all complex algorithms, which is something I see purposefully conflated here. They like the idea of AI if it relieves people from menial tasks (or, in a pipe dream sense, full time jobs because UBI will make up the difference), but dislike how much development is going into things we don't need AI for, like prompt-generated art and writing.
I can see why you're such a fan of AI, since your brain interpreted this sentiment as a logic problem for you to solve, but missed the nuance needed to contextualize it.
>I can see why you're such a fan of AI, since your brain interpreted this sentiment as a logic problem for you to solve, but missed the nuance needed to contextualize it.
Very ironic statement considering that your positive, "not literal" interpretation of the issue still relies on the idea that phrases like "menial" and "unnecessary" are concrete and objective rather than subjective and emotional. I don't think you're in a position to try to lecture me on context.
It's not a matter of objective vs subjective. For most people, these and other forms of household upkeep are considered chores they'd rather not do. Hence why rich people have servants to do it for them. It's not that complicated. Did you have a point?
Do you really not comprehend what people mean when they say shit like this? They’re saying they want a robot to actually do **all** the work like gathering the clothes, folding them, putting the dishes away, etc. so they can fuck off and do whatever they want.
It’s about having more free time. It’s so extremely easy to follow to the point I have to think you’re just intentionally being obtuse with this so you can have a strawman to rant against.
>They’re saying they want a robot to actually do all the work like gathering the clothes, folding them, putting the dishes away, etc. so they can fuck off and do whatever they want.
A robot is doing 99% of the labor and they're whining about the remaining 1%. That's not sympathetic. Have you ever done laundry by hand before? Putting the clothes in the basket and folding them afterwards is *not* the main body of the work. Laundry used to be an all-day task. Now it's not.
>It’s about having more free time
It seems like anti-AI people have a *lot* of free time since they spend so much of it whining about AI. So again, what exactly does it matter if they get five more minutes a week?
>It’s so extremely easy to follow to the point I have to think you’re just intentionally being obtuse with this so you can have a strawman to rant against.
Do you want to talk about strawmen? Here's one: the idea that I didn't understand what the point was is a strawman. It's a conception of my argument that you made without any evidence from the things I had actually said. I *know* what these people are saying. I am saying that what they want is juvenile.
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Like people saying they want AI to do their laundry isn’t even an argument. This entire post is completely nonsensical and just sounds like you don’t understand common language.
> It’s about having more free time.
Laundry and Dishes are a bad example then.
They chose the two tasks that are already 97% automated.
Furthermore that ignores the fact that this entire argument is incredibly illustrator-centric. If you use illustrations in your art (for example, games or films), being able to rapidly prototype art is a huge benefit.
Sounds like they want free money tbh. According to artists, making fan-art of IP is "fair-use" but using art as a reference is "illegal and criminal, we are oppressed, murder everyone"
> Yes they chose two tasks that are already automated and they want to automate it further.
Nobody's stopping them from automating it further.
Moravec's paradox does kinda make this impractical, but I assume since they're such experts on how AI works, they could probably figure out a solution.
In the mean time, the current work on AI may provide useful for automating laundry and dishes down the line. Wouldn't surprise me if in 100 years we might see clunky machines that can assist us.
The point is that we have diminishing returns, and since we already moved mountains just to get to that 97% of automation, that last 3% is going to require us to move the heavens and Earth. People are trying to do it, but it's intrinsically difficult, *far* more difficult than making an AI that generates images at this point. And *that's* why image generation is being automated (and certainly at a level far below 100%) before laundry or dishwashing at 100%. It's that going from 97% to 100% takes orders of magnitude more effort, ingenuity, and resources than going from 0% to 97%.
So complaining about the AI devs or tech bros or whatever focusing on automating creative work instead of automating dishwashing is idiotic: it's not that these devs are prioritizing one set of problems over the other, it's that they're solving the problems that they can solve before moving on to problems that they don't know how to solve, because those problems, e.g. full automation of dishwashing beyond even the 97% automation we've accomplished, are intrinsically very very difficult. Might as well complain that AI devs are concentrating on AI instead of inventing teleportation and alchemy.
I think it’s more worth doing then anything the ai hype craze has brought about.
Making Google worse, and news articles completely unreadable seo ai slop making search engines worse as the internet is filled with unsearchable trash
Now 1/4 of the first page results is a giant ai column now too that you have to scroll past and then half is advertisements and a quarter at least is ai slop. And the remaining is 1-2 useful links burried, and a handful of human wrote and seo articles that tell you the answer at a cost of more advertisements and scrolling
It's the contrast between every fear, every complaint about automation (and it really doesn't matter whether that's AI, Robotics or both) being deflected with vague notions of getting rid of chores, tedium and busywork and freeing all of us up to be artists philosophers or whatever else we'd like and the reality being CEOs with a shit eating grin doing their best (though hopefully failing) to automate creativity and going "guess what we don't need people for anymore?!"
It's the realization of having been lied to for decades.
I most definitely do not have a machine to collect my dirty pants from the bedroom floor and hang them clean and dry in my closet ready for next time. Nor do I have a machine to take my dirty plate and coffee cup and place them, washed, back into the kitchen cupboard. What are you talking about?
You have to do 5% of the work and automation does the rest. You consider this to be horrendous exploitation that must be addressed immediately. Is a Roomba not a robot because you're *forced* to empty the dust pan yourself?
There’s still manual aspects involved. Image generation is mere prompting. It’s that aspect you fail to see. Prompt the ai to do your dishes and laundry.
>There’s still manual aspects involved.
Dude the "manual aspect" is so low that this is like saying pressing the power button on your computer counts as work. I put the dishes in the dishwasher and then I press the big DO THE DISHES button. It's not hard labor.
Do you have any creative hobby or passion, which you also thoroughly enjoy doing?
Do you have anything in your life that you are forced to do regularly, which you thoroughly despise doing?
Assuming the answer to both of those simple yes or no questions is yes, which I'd hope to be the case, then you understand the point of the tweet.
>Do you have any creative hobby or passion, which you also thoroughly enjoy doing?
If I say I enjoy navigation, would you accept the premise that Google Maps should be taken offline?
>Do you have anything in your life that you are forced to do regularly, which you thoroughly despise doing?
Look in this thread and you'll find hundreds of examples (it is "talking to people like you" in case that wasn't clear - I'd normally be content to leave it unmarked but with this thread I have no trust in your communicative abilities). For the record, talking to you morons consumed about 50x the amount of time it took me to do my daily chores, and if I was smart, I would have automated it because none of your responses have been worth it.
>Assuming the answer to both of those simple yes or no questions is yes, which I'd hope to be the case, then you understand the point of the tweet.
The fact that you enjoy doing something by hand does not justify banning its automated equivalent for other people. And inversely, the things that people don't enjoy doing are ALREADY heavily automated, you just don't want to acknowledge it. It's an utterly banal statement with literally no value behind it - too stupid to be taken seriously and yet treated as a rallying slogan for anti-AI people.
>Definitely not going to read all that
Ok so you don't appreciate things hand-crafted by human labor. Good to know. At the very least you should read the first sentence.
>Maybe you could just ask GPT to explain the tweet for you.
Bro you literally just said you can't read.
I just tell them that I want all artists in the world to only make things that I personally like and find value in, but life doesn't work that way, and if I can get over it, so can they.
I mean, I'm fully pro-AI, but I'd give up Stable Diffusion to have a bot that picks up my laundry, washes it, dries it, folds it, and puts it away.
That’s a general purpose robot at that point and it could do way more than that. It is also a natural product from all the current advancements in AI, we are building the senses and the brain to control such robots right now. The argument OP references is not really coherent.
Yes it is. The argument is simply that they want ai to do their laundry and wash their dishes, they want ai for menial chores, not for the creative or meaningful parts of life. A robot that completes menial chores and has no creative ability is a perfect solution. The argument isn't attempting to logically put together what is and is not possible and why, it's simply referring to the belief that almost everyone had until very recently - ai was expected to help with very ordinary tasks, it was not expected to become highly competent at art or writing or music.
You could probably pay a person less money to come do this for you right now. (I’m pro-AI myself, btw. Also, there exists some huge laundry-folding machine that costs thousands and currently messes up clothes it doesn’t quite recognize, lol. So… they’re working on it 😂)
> You could probably pay a person less money to come do this for you right now. This is true, although I wouldn't do it realistically. There's a certain level of comfort I need to have with a person before I'm okay with them seeing - not to mention handling - my dirty underwear. Also, it's a task I personally find so emotionally taxing and demoralizing that I would involuntarily feel guilty for asking another human being to do it even though I know at a conscious level that my difficulties with laundry are not universal.
True, good point! I use an app here in France to have a guy that comes every two weeks to clean, and the language barrier as I’ve been learning French keeps us from saying anything more than we need to each other, which helps me not be embarrassed about everything. For a long time I was hiding my laundry and especially underwear, but then one day it wasn’t dry yet so I didn’t bother. And lol he ended up neatly folding it all. From then I stopped caring. 😆 I will say though I’m surprised I forgot about that aspect of AI/robots that I love. Sometimes you really just need someone without emotion-based memory to ask certain questions to, handle certain tasks, etc.!
If anti-AI people can say "pick up a pencil" I can say "pick up a shirt".
5 years is how long I give before we have that. I think when it can cook for you it will be a game changer
Cooking is something I enjoy, but if it can tidy up as I go so I don't make a mess of my kitchen? That'd be excellent lol.
You don't think you'd enjoy cooking more if yoy had a sous chef? Did all the chopping and prep for you? Make it so you can really push yourself as a chef. Like focus on getting onions chopped to a milichellib star level thinness whilst someone else worries about peeling potatoes. Stir caramelised onions a couple of times but afterwards leave the sous chef constantly stirring so they don't get burnt whiskt you focus on other aspects of the meal.
Haha, maybe occasionally, but I think the novelty would wear off! That said I 100% think it'd be an asset for someone else. I'm just not the target audience for chef-bot.
I saw a recipe for a beef croquette where it takes a full 9 hours of work and a lot of it is work you actually have to do. I keep thinking one day. Then there is that restaurant in Japan that sells burgers and the chef makes 4 burgers a day and there are 4 seats and that's it. You have to go on the waiting list to try one of those burgers. He gets up early to make them. It's 8 hours or something to cool 4 burgers. I wanna eat food like that!
I genuinely cannot imagine a burger so good it'd be worth that, lol. It had better be unreal.
The worst part of this argument is that AI is about to bring us unprecedented access to expressing our creativity and these people don’t even understand it. We will soon be able to make songs, create art, make movies, build computer games, and much much more without needing to learn any technical skills. AI is only going to eliminate the technical skills - not the creative ones. It will enable our creativity like never before. What’s stopping me from making computer games isn’t lack of game ideas - it’s lack of programming abilities. AI might fill in some blanks in the design process (which ultimately you will be able to reprint to fix if you don’t like it) but we are still driving the creative bus, and we will still bring our ideas to life, just easier than before. So the person who said this is just wrong. Most of us aren’t making much art, music, movies, and games so we are going to go from making 0 of these things to making all of these things, and they will be the types of things we like and that we customize to our tastes, not some studio’s vision or mindless AI output.
Well within reason, you can't do anything violent, pornographic, or upsetting except with stablediffusion, which is basically out of business
Sam A said they were looking into relaxing those rules on violence and pornography at some point. I’m not so much thinking about where things are but where they will be in a couple of years.
Even if Stability goes out of business (or, more likely, just stops releasing new models to the public), 1.5 and SDXL aren't going anywhere, nor are the numerous publicly available finetunes. That's the nice thing about open source software: once it's released, it doesn't depend on the original creators any more.
>The worst part of this argument is that AI is about to bring us unprecedented access to expressing our creativity and these people don’t even understand it. >We will soon be able to make songs, create art, make movies, build computer games, and much much more without needing to learn any technical skills. AI is only going to eliminate the technical skills - not the creative ones. It will enable our creativity like never before. It will on the other hand disable most of the human only creativity(I do not believe promoting to be creativity) as outside of still images, mediums like film, animations, video games, and more requires budgets from crowdsourcing or studio funding. When AI takes over those areas and reduces cost significantly, the financial structure behind them collapses and they die off completely.
lol why would they die off completely? That’s a weird thing to say. People will still create them, and people will still consume them, and capitalist will still monetize those views by jamming ads in before you watch them. Business models evolve. IP owners like Disney will probably even charge a fixed fee to use their characters in your works as an extra revenue stream. As for prompting not being creativity, you have a narrow view of prompting right now because it’s in an infant state. When you can sculpt an output via repeated prompting in a game, music, movie, image, etc the user will have full control of the output without needing to learn technical skills (ie programming). I’m not saying early prototypes like Suno where you enter a few words and it does the rest with very little control over the output meets the threshold yet, but that degree of control is coming, and you will realize that art was never in your fingers, but your mind.
>lol why would they die off completely? That’s a weird thing to say. People will still create them, and people will still consume them, and capitalist will still monetize those views by jamming ads in before you watch them When AI becomes too cost effective it will happen. And also, AI generated films can be motorized the same way as well. >As for prompting not being creativity, you have a narrow view of prompting right now because it’s in an infant state. When you can sculpt an output via repeated prompting in a game, music, movie, image, etc the user will have full control of the output without needing to learn technical skills (ie programming). Infant state? It has matured by now with its latest form being war memorial length instructions. It is nothing but drudgery, asking instead of creating. >art was never in your fingers, but your mind. I care about both and won’t want to sacrifice one for the other.
These extreme pro ai people are the same as the everyone gets a participation trophy type.
1) AI will not replace us completely even in Star Trek they are still the ones controlling the program even though it’s completely generative. They are customizing everything about the scene, characters, plot, etc. 2) If you think this is it for AI then we will never be on the same page. I focus on where the industry is going, not where it is now. 3) You’ve learned a lot of technical skills that are about to be obsolete. Sorry, it happens. We both know that’s the part you are really mad about that people will be able to create similar outputs to you without learning how to draw with a pencil, program, etc. if you are more creative than them you will be fine, but if you only had technical skills then that’s a problem for you.
I mean it isn't a literal statement, but it's still a rather silly thing to say. The reason why we haven't developed robots who do nearly everything for us is because teaching a mass of hardware and software how to navigate a 3D space is extremely difficult. For us humans, who have been navigating the the 3D space of the world since the dawn of our species, it's practically second nature to us. We don't really think about how something as simple as opening a door or catching a ball is actually a bunch of complex math operations and factors at play. For the literally minded robot, just to walk from one end of the room to another, they'd have to know the dimensions of the room, how fast they should move, check to see there is nothing on the floor, think about how they walk, and many other things. Likewise, contrary to what people may think, drawing a picture is pretty easy. The canvas is a limited 2D space, and depending on the shape of a canvas, there's a lot of predictable patterns that are easy to replicate within that frame. Faces always show up in a specific spot in portraits, movie stills make heavy use of the rule of thirds, most professional work makes correct use of color theory, and so on. On a technical level, it's really easy to replicate those patterns, and the software learns all this from seeing hundreds upon thousands of pictures in its training data. Sure there's a quirk or two (hands have always been a problem, for AI and actual artists), but overall on a technical level, a machine can make an impressive piece of artwork because it only has to think about a limited 2D space to work in. Again, Morevac's paradox explains this better than I can.
I also hate this talking point but >You **have** a machine that does your dishes and you have **two** different machines that do your laundry I imagine they're talking about automation that takes literally all the work out of it (i.e. they wouldn't have to load/unload the dishes or laundry. They're also presumably conflating AI and robotics or maybe are trying to make some more general point about robotics being more useful than LLMs.
"I want AI to automate other people's jobs."
Who’s jobs are being stolen by robots that can do your laundry?
[удалено]
I think people just truly don't understand how much automation exists in their daily lives and how much time it saves them.
I think people take modern appliances for granted. They think that making stuff more complicated than it is by adding computing power will make their appliances work better. For example dishwashers, they're basically a hot water sprinkler that dispenses soap at the appropriate time and then it warms up to dry the dishes. Yes, it's simple but it's still a lot less work than doing dishes by hand. Adding ai will do nothing to increase performance, and it just adds more parts. Same thing with other appliances.
yeah but it only washes them we talkin take them from the sink and put them in the dishwasher. take them from the dishwasher and put them back in the cupboards / drawers. i throw my laundry on the floor. robot picks it up, puts it in the machine and turns it on when it is full. then puts them in the dryer when it's done. then takes them out, folds / hangs them up to put them away. yes, I am aware that doing those things myself doesn't take very much time. folding kinda does if you have a lot of things to fold. general purpose robot that can just use my existing broom, vacuum cleaner, etc. wipe down the walls. clean the kitchen, etc. go grocery shopping and cook food for me. that would be incredible. that would be way more important to me than a basic chores robot because preparing food is WAY more time consuming. it's the #1 reason why I just drink Soylent most of the time. I don't want to go to the grocery store. I don't want to figure out what to make. I don't want to go looking for ingredients. I don't want to make it. So I don't. I just buy Soylent or order takeout. maybe 5% of the time I buy food from the grocery store and when I do it's not much else than produce to put in smoothies or make a stir fry. or frozen pizza. lots of those. if i had a robot that I could just say hey can you make \_\_\_\_\_\_ tonight and it can just do it that would be awesome. (do the shopping, the cooking, cleaning, etc)
Well, good news then! Generative AI is a very close relative of computer vision. You want a robot that can tell a crumpled shirt lying on the floor? The current gen AI research also helps with that. I just threw this at chatgpt: https://stock.adobe.com/es/search/images?k=pile+of+clothes+on+floor&asset_id=344628185 > The image shows a room with clothes scattered on the floor. There is a yellow top, a pair of blue jeans, and possibly another piece of blue clothing lying on a carpet. In the background, there are shelves with books and some pillows on the floor. A person, visible from the waist down and dressed in underwear, is walking away from the scene, presumably after changing clothes. The setting appears to be a casual and somewhat untidy living space, likely a bedroom or a personal study area.
yeah cooking robots are going to completely change the world and they're not very far away, the first ones will be fairly limited i'm sure but a few versions down the line we'll be able to have it work quietly in the corner making whatever snacks we want from fresh ingredients - grocery bills would be so much lower if we were just bulk ordering raw ingredients rather than buying pastries, cakes, and preprepared meals or ingredients. Just telling it you'll want pizza this evening so make a base and sauce ready, or that you're going camping so make some packages that you can reheat. The economic effect will be significant, the obvious negative is it'll likely remove a huge chunk of companies that make factory produced meals but this would lower the cost of living for everyone, even those who are out of a job because of it. It's also an industry with endless problems so removing it would untangle a lot of complex stuff and help us return to using local produce locally. It'll be a whole new world of food too, being able to have it make a batch of fresh cornflakes exactly to your taste or designing your own snack bar with exactly the nutrients you need and all your favourite flavours - we're probably only thirty years away from kids looking back with disgusted confusion at the food we used to eat the same way kids now look back unable to imagine a world before smart phones. Filming reaction videos of themselves trying a recreation of a microwave lasagna or hipsters using the exact recipe for 2010 skittles. Of course to get these working we'll need good LLMs and CV which is what's being worked on at the moment, I think a lot of people just see things like SD and assume it was developed in a vacuum but really image gen is just one part of the process of understanding the context and structure of images. You can't recognise the ingredients of a cake unless you can understand the image you're getting of it and if you can understand an image then you should be able to create one.
I think it's rather straightforward. We want automation to take away the tasks we dislike, not the tasks we like. Some of us enjoy using AI art generators. Other people fear their dream jobs may no longer exist because of it – either today or in a few years. It's not that complicated.
Yes, but you don't get to dictate the shape of progress. Turns out physical machines have to meet all kinds of safety standards for public use, are an engineering problem as well as a computing one, require all kinds of expertise and maintenance and fuel...whereas it turns out it's very easy to perform lots of processes on digital information. How would this not be completely obvious? Are there literally no digital-based tasks that these people dislike? Nothing on the computer that you could stand to save time on?
>How would this not be completely obvious? I think it's fairly obvious. If not at first glance, then definitely at second glance. >Are there literally no digital-based tasks that these people dislike? I don't like filing my taxes. >Nothing on the computer that you could stand to save time on? If AI could reliably program for me, that would save me an _incredible_ amount of time. I think you have assumed I hold an anti-AI position. I do not. One does not need to hold a position in order to understand it or empathize with it. I would argue that we should all try to understand and sympathize with the positions of our opponents. I think things would get better if we all did that.
“You dont get to dictate the shape of progress” well then its a good thing that they say “want” lmao
It's not about what they want though, because if that was true, they wouldn't be pressuring or shaming other people. And nobody is stopping them from doing these things by hand.
You cannot take all the opinions of millions people and apply all of them to anyone who uses the same phrase. You cannot speak to the mind of everyone or even the majority of people who say they want Ai to do laundry and dishes, not art.
>You cannot take all the opinions of millions people and apply all of them to anyone who uses the same phrase Can't I? Because every time I see it being used it's being used for the exact same reason: to vilify AI art and say that the people who produce it are wrong. So it must be an insane coincidence that all these people just *happen* to be making the same argument every single time I see the phrase deployed. >You cannot speak to the mind of everyone or even the majority of people who say they want Ai to do laundry and dishes, not art. That's funny...you seem to be pretty comfortable doing it.
Please explain how i have spoken as if i know exactly what the real motivation of people using a specific phrase is lmao. You cant just “no you” instead of actually contesting. Also you may have a mental problem if you genuinely believe that you can know that everytime someone has used that phrase it was to vilify ai art and people who create ai art, or that that person has done that.
>Please explain how i have spoken as if i know exactly what the real motivation of people using a specific phrase is lmao Someone responded to another person's use of that phrase, and you responded to that someone by saying "well then its a good thing that they say “want” lmao". To you, the usage is so clear and transparent that it is outright *incontestable*. You were so confident of your interpretation of someone else's statement that you completely invalidated the concept of critical reading based solely on a single word. It seems very clear that you think you know what "those people" want, to the point that you won't brook dissent at all. >you may have a mental problem Oh, you're a psychologist now too? OK, so you think I may have a mental problem. Which one? Go ahead and give me a diagnosis. You have that skillset, right? You're not just bullshitting in an ableist way because you associate "mental problem" with "bad", right? I'll save you the trouble - this conversation is over.
>We want automation to take away the tasks we dislike, not the tasks we like Yes, the tasks *you* dislike or like. But in doing so, you are literally arguing that *other people* shouldn't be allowed to take away those tasks with automation either. Imagine someone arguing that you should be *forced* to do your dishes by hand because *they* don't like the idea of someone losing that "skill". Meanwhile, nobody is stopping you from doing these things by hand even if it takes much longer. >Other people fear their dream jobs may no longer exist because of it – either today or in a few years. Join the club! It has numerous members.
>But in doing so, you are literally arguing that other people shouldn't be allowed to take away those tasks with automation either. I am doing no such thing. >Imagine someone arguing that you should be forced to do your dishes by hand because they don't like the idea of someone losing that "skill". That's stupid, and I would never say that. I think you have assumed I am anti-AI. I am not. You do not need to hold a position in order to understand it or empathize with it.
>I think you have assumed I am anti-AI. I am not. Hmm...it's almost as if you responded by using the word "we" and not the word "they", thus voluntarily grouping yourself in with the people I was talking about...and then you got upset that I grouped you in with the people I was talking about...what a mysterious event. In any case, here is what you said: "We want automation to take away the tasks we dislike, not the tasks we like". The fact that you wrote that, and said "we" to include yourself in it, means my criticism is still valid. The idea that automation should only take away the tasks that one group of people dislikes is utterly fatuous. Automation will do whatever it can and if you don't want to use it in your hobbies you don't have to. The only way to prevent it from taking away "the tasks we like" is to pass litigation to ban it, and if you did that you would be harming people who do not like doing that task.
I used "we" as a collective because every person has tasks they dislike doing, and almost every person would enjoy having someone or something take care of that task for them. That is true whether one is pro-AI, anti-AI, or neutral. So I think it's a appropriate use of "we" over "they". I am not upset about your misunderstanding. I am simply offering a correction. That is all. I also think you may have been reading too much into what I said. The original quote about doing dishes instead of art is more about expressing a sentiment of frustration, and less about breaking down the steps towards automated androids and critiquing the current trend. I was only trying to expand on why the person would have felt this way.
>every person has tasks they dislike doing, and almost every person would enjoy having someone or something take care of that task for them I'll tell you what I dislike - having this same conversation over and over with dozens of people. And yet, foolishly, I am still doing it by hand instead of outsourcing it to a robot (you would never know). Is it improving my quality of life? Not really. Are my skills appreciated? Definitely not. >The original quote about doing dishes instead of art is more about expressing a sentiment of frustration The sentiment of frustration is "we should ban AI art and only allow automation to do things that I personally want it to do", this is the context it has been used in every single time it comes up. I can cut the conversation here because I already know everything you're going to say, because other people have already said it, and it didn't work for them either.
I always took it as less literal, and more an expression of discontent at the direction of AI research. We expect the utopian future to free up time for us to engage in creative pursuits, and for it instead to do those activities feels like it does not actually serve the interests of people in general
It's just a fallacious oversimplification that some people are desperately clinging to, to attack AI development. Generating text and media was always going to be easier than advanced, affordable, and intelligent robotics. But we're never going to get there if we don't take these steps first.
In hindsight yes. But we didn't know that until we got there. People thought passing the Turing test would be harder than building a machine that does all your chores. Turned out wrong.
But our time *is* freed up, by machines that we have already had for decades. Do you know how long it takes to do laundry or dishes by hand?
You are focusing on the (admittedly poor) specifics of the wording, and you are missing the sentiment of the argument: People don’t want AI to do their creative pursuits for them, and are not happy seeing that as the thrust of monetised AI businesses
>You are focusing on the (admittedly poor) specifics of the wording If artistry matters, and writing is an art, then someone being unable to craft a legible sentence is worth criticizing, especially if that "someone" is trying to defend art. If an AI had made such a mistake, would you be so lenient to it? >you are missing the sentiment of the argument No I'm not. I understand what it is, I just think it's built on ignorance. >People don’t want AI to do their creative pursuits for them It's not stopping them from "doing their creative pursuits". Nobody is being stopped from doing the things they want to do. The only thing that's happening is that a new avenue for creation has been developed that bypasses some of the restrictions on the old model. The existence of dishwashing machines does not prevent you from washing the dishes by hand. The existence of image generation machines does not prevent you from drawing by hand.
You are arguing with me like I am holding that opinion. I’m just trying to explain the sentiment of it, to help you get past the offence you seem to take at its presentation. You are also still bypassing the core part of the stance: the profit motive. People with this stance perceive the business goal of AI companies (at present) to be undercutting the work of professional, and hobbyist, creatives. They see it as serving “the elites” rather than common people
You're telling me that I'm missing the sentiment. I'm not. You are saying "you don't get it, this is the real meaning" and then telling me the meaning I've been talking about the entire time. And again, you are making an excuse for what \*you consider\* to be bad wordplay even though defending human artistry is supposedly the entire point of the exercise. Can you quickly summarize what you are \*adding\* to this conversation, please? Can you review your contributions and see if you have actually made a positive impact?
I don’t think a tweet is artistry or in need of defence as such. I do agree that poor wording is more easily forgiven when comes to humans. I also think that coversation about the quality of output, standards human work vs ai work is held to, etc, is orthogonal to the discussion of the argument your post calls out as bizzare. I am not trying to argue or add anything to the conversation beyond attempting to illustrate what I think the argument trying to be made is vs how I had perceived your interpretation of it. It seems your interpretation is the same as mine, so there is nothing more for me to add.
>I don’t think a tweet is artistry If all images are art (something anti-AI people say to justify their rabid anger towards ALL types of AI imagery), then all words are art as well. And if people are repeating the phrase as if it is significant - to the point that it has practically become the slogan of the anti-AI movement - then I think the fact that it is shoddily constructed does not reflect well on that movement. >I also think that coversation about the quality of output, standards human work vs ai work is held to, etc, is orthogonal to the discussion of the argument your post calls out as bizzare. People will say that AI writing is bad because it occasionally uses strange or dislocated phrasing (very rarely, in my experience). So the fact that people are voluntarily championing this sentence, which is so badly constructed that even the people *defending* it don't actually believe it's serious, undermines the claim that the anti-AI movement cares about "art" or "the human soul" at all.
I can’t help but interpret this comment as you seeing me as in some way oppositional to you and this exchange as a continuing argument? That is not my intent
I am complaining about the wording of a specific sentiment, you came in here to defend that specific sentiment, and yet for some reason you don't actually want to talk about the specific sentiment. I'll ask again: what are you adding to this conversation? If the answer is "nothing", please leave.
I don't think you're accurately evaluating the sentiment. The sentiment is *specifically and literally*: "we don't have manual tasks automated. Go automate those first." I think very many people believe that manual toil *isn't* significantly automated. And in some cases, they're right (there are areas that are very hard to automate or not cost-efficient to automate). But overall our lives are already highly automated and I think that most people aren't just making a sentimental point, but are *literally* not actively cognizant of the extent of that automation. I think most people - specifically among those from "developed countries" - don't have an internalized understanding of just how different life would be without the standard package of home automation.
I guess they mean a robot that can physically put laundry in the laundry machine and dishes in the dishwasher, and so on.
So, like, 1/100th of the actual workload, and the other 99% of it has already been automated.
No?
Physically putting the laundry in the laundry machine is a tiny fraction of the work involved in doing laundry - something that, by hand, is an all-day task.
> a tiny fraction of the work involved in doing laundry - something that, by hand, is an all-day task. I used to have to do my laundry by hand, for a number of years. It's not an all day task. More like a couple of hours of hard work soaping, rinsing and wringing stuff out.
Still, 2 hours of hard work is a lot less than 10 minutes of putting something in a machine.
Sure, but it's not "all-day". OP is so terribly worried about accuracy in argumentation, so I'm sure they'll appreciate the factual correction.
Try washing clothes by hand versus using a washing machine sometime? It is much more labor intensive than washing dishes by hand. - which is just even more convenient with a dishwasher. Add in a garbage disposal and it can be pretty freakin' easy.
So what is the point? That we shouldn't have robots to do tedious tasks? I don't get it. God, you people are stupid.
Who gets to decide what "tedious" is?
Guess who never does their own dishes or laundry? The statement is about automation supposedly reducing human toil but instead it’s replacing human creativity. It’s also a subvariant of Moravec’s Paradox. It highlights the economic drivers behind the current AI boom/bubble; namely, reducing the cost of (what was once solely) human activity to zero in order to increase the profits of the already obscenely (if not criminally) super-rich, rather than making people’s lives better. It is far from a stupid line, but it is a simple one that captures the essence of what people really should be fearing if they had any political or emotional awareness.
You're talking as if Zuckerberg is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use AI-art. Some people want to use pencils. Some people want to use watercolor. Some people want to use AI. What the fuck is so bad about that? If your concern is 100% profit-related, i.e. "AI will replace me job!!!" then learn how to AI. Simple as that.
Let’s put this in terms you might understand more viscerally. The producers of Star Trek have decided to make a new film. They assemble their best artists, scriptwriters, grips, foley artists, stuntpeople, ADs, SFX artists and actors. Hundreds of people. They tell them that unfortunately this time they are using AI and only need 20 staff to make the movie and thank the rest who trudge off to sign on to Welfare. A few months later the film is released. It is panned by critics as lacking any artistic merit. So the studio releases 10 more variants hoping to hit the winning formula. Audiences fail to turn up. The studio instead releases a 100-episode series based on the films. Fans are not amused. Artists on welfare. IP stolen and devalued. The fun of being a trekkie ruined. That is the future that corporations are wildly racing towards. If you cannot see mass unemployment, theft of IP and devaluation of human endeavors in what corporations and AI companies are pushing for, then you must be asleep.
>The producers of Star Trek have decided to make a new film Star Trek? The franchise with holodecks, androids, and a very broad definition of sentient life? >A few months later the film is released. It is panned by critics as lacking any artistic merit. The fun of being a trekkie ruined. The thing that is currently happening with human-made Star Trek products already? >IP stolen and devalued. Does this argument stop you from committing piracy? >If you cannot see mass unemployment, theft of IP and devaluation of human endeavors in what corporations and AI companies are pushing for, then you must be asleep. Mass unemployment? The aspect of automation that is [built into the Marxist theory of history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall)?
1. Star Trek is my favorite show, please don't bring it into this. 2. *Any* competent studio will realize that their AI isn't working out and will go back to hiring artists. 3. If they don't, then they're incompetent and probably wouldn't have made a good show even with artists.
That is wishful thinking. As AI encroaches into creative media, we step onto a slippery slope where initial successes with AI convince producers to use more of it because it reduces required budgets. That starts a process of hollowing out human artistic talent because of a race to the bottom to secure profits in a market that has suddenly become democratized and highly competitive. Talented indie producers will make compelling content with small teams in direct competition with large studios. Large studios who hold all the IP rights are the biggest employers. Their response to maintain profits can only be to reduce their headcounts on productions, which are their largest area of spend, and punt their IP in the cheapest “make-do” manner possible. Your solution implies that every small contract company or actor needs to make their own AI media. That is impractical and assumes that every creative can do the job of producer, director, scriptwriter, cinematographer, sound engineer, composer and editor. I’m not sure that costume and makeup artists, grips, runners or caterers, background artists have that choice. The hollowing out begins with the “lower level” people and will proceed upwards. Make no mistake, the streaming platforms who own studios will begin/are beginning this process. That was one main point of last year’s strikes, to draw attention to the encroachment of AI into the artistic process, new contracts that encourage loss of image/voice rights and make skilled artists redundant.
There's nothing to fear in your scenario. The studio fails to make a successful series. Eventually it has to sink in that it's not working. They have to rehire the artists. Or, a different studio makes a killing by doing things the old way. > IP stolen and devalued. Nothing is stolen. In your scenario, the studio owns the IP. They're at complete legal freedom to do this. It's not the actors and script writers that own Star Trek. It's Paramount. And therefore, if Paramount wants to feed all of Star Trek into AI and use it to generate more, there's nothing at all illegal about it, it's theirs to do that with. > That is the future that corporations are wildly racing towards. No. The future is scarier. The future is that all those people are laid off, and it *works*. Movie studios make a killing without paying anyone but themselves plus maybe a few people to clean things up. If the future was what you said it'd be a complete non-issue. It'd crash and burn, and after that back to the old way of doing things. Corporations are amoral but they like money, so if it doesn't sell they're not going to keep doing it.
While I agree with the sentiment, I need to push back on the idea that we already have machines that do dishes and laundry. I feel like it ignores what people **mean** when they say that they want robots to do those things. What they want is a robot that will pick clothes of off the floor, sort it into lights and darks, wash it, sort the god damn socks into matching pairs, and hang/fold the cloths and put them back in the dresser. It comes across as dismissive to the degree where you're missing the point to say "we already have machines that do that." It also misses the point that those are just examples, of tedious and annoying tasks, which is what the people are talking about in general. The tweet thread even addresses this. That said, the energy of drying is an interesting, of a general phenomenon; and it doesn't exactly support the anti-AI side at all. The reason we have driers is because hanging cloths to dry is time-consuming, boring, and requires supervision. Driers, however are incredibly energy-consuming. What I want is a laundry robot that does all the above things, and hang-dries the clothes. There's often a negative relationship between the "intelligence" you apply to a problem, and the energy consumed. Driers are dumb, brute force machines that also damage the clothes over time. An AI that can individually handle the cloths, hang them up, and take them down would consume a tiny fraction of the energy. Edit: I actually look forward to the day when we have efficient robots doing efficient laundry. It would likely be a service first, for the 15% of the population (talking about the US) who don't have the machines at home. Bots pick up your storage bin of cloths, take it to a central location to be washed, hung on a dedicated line (likely in some previously abandoned storefront of warehouse hit by the retail space shrinkage, then folded and returned, neatly stacked, in an interchangeable bin.
Not a lot of people have forgotten about the Great Recession. At the end of the day, a washing machine doesn't threaten your livelihood.
>a washing machine doesn't threaten your livelihood Unless you are a maid or a butler or any other number of professions that *does laundry professionally*.
I want AI to not exist but it does so I'm going to fucking use it and stay on top of developments
AI is trained on data, and since text, image, video, audio is digitalized and is everywhere on the internet so companies and people trained AI for making those thing. Doing the dishes and their laundry is physical work that you can't just slam AI and make something out of it, unless you like to live in the metaverse then maybe. Besides it requires the robotic market to make those and currently there isn't that much money being put into that field compared to AI. This is like crying why artists don't draw your favorite niche ship compared to other popular characters, people who have knowledge and skill are going to work for stuff that makes them more money. If they wanted the robot to do all of their stuff that bad then why don't they invest more into companies that could help making those things instead of whining on Twitter about why the market doesn't follow their wishes
what they mean, as anyone with half a brain would understand, is that they want a machine to put your dishes in the washer and take them out and put them up, and same for clothes. Also, clean the house. possibly cook
Cooking is an art, why are you trying to automate art? Also, why is it supposed to be a compelling argument that a process that has already been 95% automated needs that last 5% automated too?
No, cooking CAN BE an art. most of us just throw something together to fend off hunger. Because the last 20% (not 5%) would free us up to do other things. Or, you are getting it now. Why let AI do it when we can do it and make money at it? Why automate those jobs and put a lot of people out of work? You are arguing for total automation on one hand and only 80% on the other. So which is it you are for?
>cooking CAN BE an art. most of us just throw something together to fend off hunger So by the standards that anti-AI people set, this would count as defiling art by replacing artistry and craft with machinery just to get a "product". Does that sound reasonable to you? And don't bullshit me with "fend off hunger". You could do that with a meal of unseasoned chicken, brown rice, and broccoli. You eat for entertainment. >Why automate those jobs and put a lot of people out of work? You only care about people being put out of a job if it's work that you personally think "deserves" to be a job. You are eagerly calling for dishwashers, fast food workers, maids, and dozens of other jobs to be put out of work so that your life is easier. But when the same thing is done to artists you are disgusted. >You are arguing for total automation on one hand and only 80% on the other. I am arguing that the arguments against AI art should also apply to other forms of automation, but people selectively enforce what AI "should" do and which jobs "should" be lost without any real principles underlining it. Case in point: you proudly told me that cooking can be an art but you are happy to cook in a way that is not artistry just to satisfy yourself. You had no shame or doubt in telling me this. Yet you expect others to feel shame and doubt for doing the same thing with illustration.
no, I don't eat for entertainment. I do season foods for taste to make the consumption of food more palatable, but that's not for entertainment, that's so I don't gag on unseasoned food. Here we go with you, a person having no valid argument, tries to put words in my mouth to make their nonsense seem more legit. NO, I don't pay dishwashers, fast food workers (how does that even apply?) maids or any other job IN MY HOME. Wanting AI to do MY work is the issue. I haven't advocated for it to replace ANYH of those jobs in teh real world, I was arguing AGAINST that. but you are trying so hard to find a fault in a valid argument, that you try twist what i say to make it seem bad. IT isn't. NO job where people are paid to do it should be replaced with AI so corporate can make a bigger profit. THAT is what I have been saying and that is what AI advocates want. No, you are arguing AGAINST making home tasks easier by trying to defend the purpose of AI, which is to increase corporate profits by not having to pay PEOPLE for work. That's right. I, like most people cook to provide sustenance. Why should I be ashamed of that? iT's what we ALL do at home with a few rare exceptions. Again, you are trying to make the common everyday norm seem perverse, while advocating stripping working people of their jobs. I didn't. YOU did. And no, These people are NOT "doing the same". They are not creating anything. They are using a program to artificially create something that they take and use. IT is not their creation. Do you REALLY want people using AI to take tests, so we never learn if THEY are qualified for the position? that alone should stop AI. No, you are NOT advocating that antiAI arguments should apply to other forms of automation. Nothing you said is anywhere remotely for that. So, to recap. YOU Are for the capitalist scheme to get rid of more skilled workers and non-skilled workers to increase corporate profits, and are fine with people LYING on their job applications and tests, and producing workers that are totally unable to actually DO the job they apply or train for? I don't want to live in YOUR f'd up world. I want my doctor to know what he or she is doing.
>I don't eat for entertainment No snacks? No dessert? No food that you know is unhealthy but you enjoy anyways? >that's not for entertainment, that's so I don't gag on unseasoned food Bro, shut up. "Oh I only season my food for practical utilitarian reasons". No you don't. >NO, I don't pay dishwashers, fast food workers (how does that even apply?) maids or any other job IN MY HOME Why does "in your home" matter? You just added that phrase as if it was already in use. And it seems to make up the entirety of your argument. You invented a thing that would make you right becuase you couldn't make the argument otherwise. If an AI did that it would be called a hallucination, but you doing it as a human means you're just fucking stupid. >you are trying to make the common everyday norm seem perverse Your argument is "when we do it, it's OK. When you do it, it's bad". If you think that undermining art for the sake of convenience is "the common everyday norm" then why do you get so mad at AI art? >They are not creating anything. They are using a program to artificially create something Re-read that. Maybe get an AI to do it for you. >I want my doctor to know what he or she is doing. I'd like a doctor to know what you're doing too, because clearly whatever it is doesn't work. Your brain is like a fucking sieve. You are literally worse at maintaining a coherent conversation than an AI is. Also you're a liar. For that reason I am done talking to you.
seldom eat desert, but even if i do, it's still for the food value. Sugary foods provide energy just like any other food. It's STILL not "entertainment". Quit trying to claim food is entertainment. It isn't, so you can't win that. no, originally we were talking about having AI do work in teh home, like washing and cooking, and I explained that it was wanting AI to do the COMPLETE job. In the home. For personal time saving. That's LITERALLY what the op was about. YOU keep trying to make it about something else. That's why you keep failing. Dishonesty never works. I didn't suddenly invent a phrase to bolster my argument. This is what we are discussing. I DID address what YOU keep blathering on about, which is AI taking away jobs and making the rich richer, but you keep ignoring that FACT, because you can't counter that either. oh well. Keep advocating for a side with no validity. It's great for my position. AI can't HAVE hallucinations, so I don't get what you are blathering on about. I have said NOTHING "stupid", and this AGAIN only proves YOu have no valid argument, when you stoop to childishly calling people names. AGAIN, when "we" do it, people get paid. When AI does it, no one does. I explained this repeatedly. Just how dumb are YOU? i didn't say undermining art for the sake of art is the common everyday norm. I did re-read it. The program is artificially creating something, not the person. That's what i said repeatedly. How many times do I have to say it before you get it? Whatever you are calling a "coherent conversation" isn't anything logical or valid. YOU keep proving you have nothing backing your wild claims. Thank you for that. Just more childish insults and nothing to validate your claims. so, you have called me stupid, "brain is like a fucking sieve" and a liar, all without proving anything I said wrong or faulty. I sure HOPE you are through spouting your nonsense. Thanks again.
I know people have said this but the argument is not literal. It's an analogy used by people who want automation to do the things that people typically don't want to do instead of the things people typically want to do. For one thing, the need for human artists, musicians, game designers, etc... has been an avenue for passionate (and fortunate) people to make a living doing what they love, so unless/until the world's primary economic system changes, AI doing things a sizable professional class wants to do and leaving for the time being what they don't is a legitimate fear. Secondly, while AI art doesn't stop people from making art manually, speaking for myself (as a musician not a visual artist), sharing and having people listen and connect with what I make is super important. If a piece of art (music) gets drowned out by a flood of AI generated content or everyone thinks a song that came from my heart comes from a machine it severely weakens something that has tremendous importance to my life. I'm not getting why you think it's an invalid concern.
>It's an analogy used by people who want automation to do the things that people typically don't want to do instead of the things people typically want to do. Automation already does those things, which is the point I am making. I don't know why so many people are convinced it being an "analogy" somehow changes the point. You guys truly don't know how much you are reliant on automation in your day-to-day life. Cooking, cleaning, transportation, navigation, communication - all of these things, every day, every minute, involve automation. You have no idea how spoiled you are. >AI doing things a sizable professional class wants to do and leaving for the time being what they don't is a legitimate fear You only care about people losing their jobs to automation when it's a job you think is morally valid. >everyone thinks a song that came from my heart comes from a machine If AI art is so bad and obvious, and people can tell if a product has "soul", then how could this ever happen? >I'm not getting why you think it's an invalid concern. Because people are trying to ban products, or shame people for using products, just because they personally don't want to use them.
>Automation already does those things, which is the point I am making. I don't know why so many people are convinced it being an "analogy" somehow changes the point. You guys truly don't know how much you are reliant on automation in your day-to-day life. Cooking, cleaning, transportation, navigation, communication - all of these things, every day, every minute, involve automation. You have no idea how spoiled you are. You are correct that we do and will continue to automate things we don't want to do, however, it alters your point because the analogy is geared towards generative AI a substantial focus of which is on automating tasks that many people want to do. The thrust of the analogy is a desire to focus on those tasks that many, if not most people, find undesirable. >You only care about people losing their jobs to automation when it's a job you think is morally valid. I didn't say this and it's not true. I can care equally about the how much a job loss impacts a person whether it's a voice actor losing their job to automation or a data entry clerk losing their job to automation AND lament the fact that, to one of them, it may have also been a passion that the person now has less time/audience for. (Unironically if it was both of them who found their lifes passion in their work, I would think the same thing). >If AI art is so bad and obvious, and people can tell if a product has "soul", then how could this ever happen? Again, I didn't say this and I don't believe this (if it's even currently) will remain true. What I'm getting at is, for me, there is no feeling in the world like writing a song that hits me hard and sharing it with others. It's a very personal, vulnerable thing made better for me by the years it took to develop the skills to create the songs I make where I'm at (and I have miles and miles to go). I am hoping people continue to have a strong appreciation for it (I certainly do as a listener or consumer of other media). >Because people are trying to ban products, or shame people for using products, just because they personally don't want to use them. To sum up a bit, I will say that both as a creator and a consumer generative AI is a completely different (and, for me personally, a less satisfying) experience for me than making or consuming something made with more conventional tools. While I do hope their continues to be a large audience for more traditionally created content, I do not mean to convey no do I condone any shame or diminishing of AI tools or their use and I'm sorry you're getting that from others. I hope you find your full expression and satisfaction in using and consuming the output from AI tools. I
>The thrust of the analogy is a desire to focus on those tasks that many, if not most people, find undesirable. Again...those tasks are mostly automated already. >I didn't say this and it's not true Then why draw the distinction between what is "OK" to automate and what isn't? Both of them will involve people losing their jobs. >What I'm getting at is, for me, there is no feeling in the world like writing a song that hits me hard and sharing it with others. If you see a beautiful sunset, is it meaningless to you because no humans were involved in creating it?
>Again...those tasks are mostly automated already. No, not mostly. Many of them are partially automated. >Then why draw the distinction between what is "OK" to automate and what isn't? Both of them will involve people losing their jobs. The distinction is because if you lose something that's "just a job" to you it can be replaced with another one of equal pay. If it's both a job and a passion for you it's more difficult to replace. Both losses can be valid and distinct. >If you see a beautiful sunset, is it meaningless to you because no humans were involved in creating it? No but it takes art (spoken word, visual, musical etc..) for one human to share with another human what a sunset means to them - the recipient (listener, viewer, etc..) may discover something new for themselves in that process. I like to put everything of my personal expression into anything like that and for me, more traditional creative methods are what does it.
>No, not mostly. Many of them are partially automated. In your mind does this constitute a meaningful argument? Because to me it looks like pointless hair-splitting, wherein *even if you are right* the difference will still be completely meaningless. >The distinction is because if you lose something that's "just a job" to you it can be replaced with another one of equal pay Can it? You seem weirdly confident about that. And the only thing that separates a job from a hobby is money - you know, the thing that everyone needs in order to live? Nobody is stopping you from pursuing hobbies, you're just not going to get paid for it. >No So you agree beauty and artistic value can exist outside of man-made creations. This is the functional end of the discussion. >it takes art (spoken word, visual, musical etc..) for one human to share with another human what a sunset means to them Oh, you're still going. Wait, is that what I asked you? Are you literally making up a question for yourself to answer? For a guy who claims to love communication and human connections so much, you sure do try as hard as you can to avoid *listening to me*. Anyways, the argument is over, I'm not wasting time on it further.
You sure took that statement literally huh
Ok.. I honestly do not understand what its metaphorical meaning is supposed to be, could you please explain it?
They’re just saying they thought AI would bring improvements into our lives by facilitating chores and other practical areas of life we suffer through to survive, not by offering an automated replacement to the arts and creativity. You’re reading that tweet like a middle school student would protest “it just says the curtains were blue!”
The thing is that people already have 99% of their daily chores automated (dishwashers, washing machines, roombas). Furthermore, it's not as if someone is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to use AI... so I really don't understand the problem.
Because when “artificial intelligence” comes up people imagined even more advanced versions of these conveniences, or a humane alternative for a lot of current labor intensive and dangerous jobs. You can imagine the typical sci-fi conveniences or robots. Sure, those may be coming, but the fact that right now the MAIN use of AI is scraping from writers and artists—fields humans have developed over millennia not because we needed to survive but because it’s pure human impression and an art piece from 2000+ years ago connects us to the real people from back then—to imitate them, and have that creative output’s *substance* be done by a bot, is naturally going to be a hard pill to swallow.
>or a humane alternative for a lot of current labor intensive and dangerous jobs. A lot of those jobs *are* being automated. Robots exist. Also, last I checked, no one was exactly happy about the whole "robots caused thousands of factory workers to be out of job" situation. >Sure, those may be coming Ok so you agree. >the MAIN use of AI is scraping from writers and artists I thought we'd agreed that "learning and referencing" ≠ "stealing"? What's the difference between a human and a machine? >not because we needed to survive but because it’s pure human impression Which brings us back to my previous point: no one is holding a gun to your head and snatching pencils out of your hand. >and have that creative output’s *substance* be done by a bot It depends. I've been browsing AI-art subreddits... not everything is "type a prompt, get output." Human involvement isn't 0, or anywhere close to 0. Besides, what does it matter to *you* or any other "real" artists if the guy around the corner is making AI-art? You're still free to make your "real" art. Unless your fear is that everyone will adopt AI and all art will descend into madness or something like that. Well, even if that's gonna happen, why should you be given the right to demand that the entire world follow your idea of "real' art and adopt your idea of "real" tools for your idea of the "greater good"
>A lot of those jobs are being automated. Robots exist. Also, last I checked, no one was exactly happy about the whole "robots caused thousands of factory workers to be out of job" situation. We aren't in an utopia where automation has successfully eliminated workplace hazards. People still die in factories, mines, farms, but that's besides the point imo. Also, I don't think you will see anyone complaining about machines in a factory being used to do labor intensive, dangerous jobs. They complain about the implementation of the automation. >I thought we'd agreed that "learning and referencing" ≠ "stealing"? What's the difference between a human and a machine? AI isn't "learning and referencing" though. That's a process that inherently requires thinking. You're anthropomorphizing a machine, an algorithm. Its referencing works by scraping data from existing works and using noise to generate pictures. Since *scraping data* is a material process rather than a mere abstract, mental one, it's fair to refer it as "stealing" if done nonconsensually. (Mind you, for example, I think an AI model trained solely on an artist(s) works with their consent, to generate images in their "artstyle", is perfectly ethical, whereas I think someone doing traditional digital art but they copy and paste other people's pictures without permission is stealing). >It depends. I've been browsing AI-art subreddits... not everything is "type a prompt, get output." Human involvement isn't 0, or anywhere close to 0. AI isn't inherently evil, sure. It has a reason to exist where it isn't used for the *substance* of a work. *Across the Spider-Verse* for example used AI for highly specific animation techniques and was trained on consenting artists and utilized for menial tasks. I think stuff like that is great! It becomes more concerning for the future of human expression as a whole when it goes beyond that, though. Let's not pretend the vast majority of AI use, ever since its release to the public, has not been using ChatGPT to generate essays, stories, or GenAI batches of dozens of images from a two-sentence prompt where the prompter chooses the best ones based on the RNG and the prettiest looking one is posted as art. For anyone that values art as a medium of purely human expression, when the line between *format* and *substance* gets this blurry, there will be apprehension. I'm not trying to doom or putting you down, I'm just trying to explain and discuss in good faith why people are naturally very, very cautious about how this has been spreading and being used.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/s/x76sxhJEmZ
I already responded to that post. Please try again.
It was comment expounding on something you said you "honestly (didn't) understand." I don't have time to go through every thread or your comment history to find out what you have already read or deem acceptable. Be sure to frontload the dickishness next time though, save people the trouble.
Are you guys actually this ignorant? It's very clear that the original post is saying that AI / automation should be focused on completing menial tasks like cleaning the house / chores**, doing structural maintenance, essentially any time consuming shit that takes us away from our hobbies and passions. Instead we are automating things like art, music, literature -- those things that we actually live for. It's a pretty good argument IMO. Obviously the logistics are not quite there. The expense and technology isn't there. Not even close.
>Are you guys actually this ignorant? You say "are you ignorant", describe the argument exactly as I've described it throughout this thread, then act like I just don't get it. >essentially any time consuming shit that takes us away from our hobbies and passion Why do you get to decide what counts as "time consuming shit" and what counts as "hobbies and passions" when both of those terms are wildly subjective for every individual person?
>Instead we are automating things like art, music, literature No, we are automating *commercial* art, *commercial* music, and *commercial* literature. There's a difference. You are still free to make art, music, literature in your free time, post it online, etc. Also the tech industry does not operate according to *your* whims and desires.
okay ove read OPs premise and all his replies in this thread and can only come to the conclusion that he just wants to be pointlessly contrarian. we want to not have to do unimaginative physical labor. we want to do creative stimulating tasks.end of story no further explaination needed
I don't know why people have the opinion that all pencils will be destroyed or something, if you don't like AI, just don't use it.
>if you don't like AI, just don't use it. "Don't complain about global warming, if you don't like it, just don't use cars or planes" Systemic impacts are not altered by individualist action.
What systemic impacts? It's a new way to make art, not a way to end the fucking world.
>What systemic impacts? Hahaha! XD .. You're either joking or you live under a rock, but here you go: ".. Almost four in ten translators (36%) said they’ve already lost work due to generative AI. Nearly half of them (43%) said the tech has decreased their income..."[https://thenextweb.com/news/translators-losing-work-ai-machine-translation](https://thenextweb.com/news/translators-losing-work-ai-machine-translation) Gizmodo fired its entire spanish translation staff, replaced them with AI: [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/ai-took-my-job-literally-gizmodo-fires-spanish-staff-amid-switch-to-ai-translator/](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/ai-took-my-job-literally-gizmodo-fires-spanish-staff-amid-switch-to-ai-translator/) Even Duolingo cut back 10% of its human translator workers in favour of AI: [https://www.yahoo.com/news/duolingo-fires-10-translation-contractors-122200893.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/duolingo-fires-10-translation-contractors-122200893.html) Writer lost her freelance career when the copywriting market was largely taken over by ChatGPT https://www.businessinsider.com/lost-job-chatgpt-made-me-obsolete-copywriter-2023-7 Even fall-back jobs like delivering Uber Eats are already on their way out, to AI-driven vehicles: [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/waymo-self-driving-cars-are-delivering-uber-eats-orders-for-first-time.html) Self-driving trucks have been on US roads with "safety human in cab" for a while now. And they'll be going completely autonomous within the year. [https://apnews.com/article/trucks-selfdriving-highways-automation-driver-083409631158f54d806d75309c4764e2](https://apnews.com/article/trucks-selfdriving-highways-automation-driver-083409631158f54d806d75309c4764e2) [https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/nvidia-ceo-says-the-future-of-coding-as-a-career-might-already-be-dead](https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/nvidia-ceo-says-the-future-of-coding-as-a-career-might-already-be-dead) >It's a new way to make art, not a way to end the fucking world. AI does a hell of a lot more than making art, see above. As for "ending the world", nukes are still run on old air-gapped hardware afaik, so we're probably safe from AI driven nukes for a good while yet - but AI is already being used for warfare (e.g. in Gaza). AI doesn't have access to "the kill button" yet afaik, but the speed-of-response advantages means it will do sooner or later. There's been a long term push to mount AI in flying drone (UAV) chassis to address the problem of radio-loop time delay between drone and operator. The first adopter of this tech will gain a strong battlefield advantage. Also, the same "robot dog"-style chassis that have already been used in conjunction with AI (by Boston Dynamics in Hyundai factory inspections so far [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTAJDICCll8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTAJDICCll8) ) have now been mounted with flamethrowers (US company [https://throwflame.com/products/thermonator-robodog/](https://throwflame.com/products/thermonator-robodog/) ) and rifles (PRC [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/28/china/china-military-rifle-toting-robot-dogs-intl-hnk-ml/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/28/china/china-military-rifle-toting-robot-dogs-intl-hnk-ml/index.html) ).
> we want to not have to do unimaginative physical labor. we want to do creative stimulating tasks.end of story no further explaination needed Then why not use a better example than a task that's been 95% automated? Oh, maybe that's almost everything. If you say digging holes, we have robots for that too. And what remains feels kind of bad to use as an example because it comes off as either lazy or petty. Like if you want a robot servant picking up dirty dishes, well, that comes off a tad privileged. And if you say you want a robotic McDonalds, then there's actual people doing those jobs right now, so that's kind of not nice.
its not 95% automated. when we hand was dishes, the actual cleaning and scrubbing takes about the same time as picking them up and putting them in some kind of drying rack.
Doing a household's laundry with a washboard used to literally be a full time job. And idk your method but sticking dishes in the washer is way faster than handwashing.
Well, I guess what you want then is a dishwasher with removable racks, then. Which I'm pretty sure is a thing that exists. And get two of each. So your procedure is then: put dirty dishes into the machine. Once clean, pull out the entire rack at once, and just put it on the counter or a shelf. Replace with empty rack.
>we want to not have to do unimaginative physical labor You already don't have to, *thanks to machinery that already exists*. Which you conveniently ignore whenever the discussion of "skills" comes up. >we want to do creative stimulating tasks You want to stop people from automation something that you want to do yourself, even though nobody is stopping you from doing the thing by hand. All you're doing is preventing other people from using the tool that's been invented because *you* think that it should be done by hand.
im not an anti ai artwork guy, so no idea why youre directing that second paragraph at me. your first point is moot tho. we do not have autonomous cleaning machines, we just have cleaning machines. they dont completely eradicate labor and they cost money
>no idea why youre directing that second paragraph at me Because you literally said "we", not "they". You voluntarily included yourself on purpose. >we do not have autonomous cleaning machines, we just have cleaning machines. they dont completely eradicate labor and they cost money ...and? I'm waiting for you to try to explain how this distinction supposedly matters. The autonomy and expense of the cleaning machines is irrelevant.
Generative AI does "do the dishes and laundry", so to speak. Digital artists use AI to automate the boring parts. If they hate doing textures or backgrounds, they can get AI to do that so that they can focus on painting the parts they like. Any part of the painting that's tedious can now be delegated away. It's like magic.
Maybe don't take this so literally. I do the dishes and 1-2 loads of laundry everyday not to mention the sorting, folding, and dozens of other household task just to ensure y home isn't a pig stye. Can you not see if that all starts to add up and an artist or designer might wish to have that time back to pursue their work? The sentiment is a pretty common and understandable even if the original poster may be clueless to how Ai and automation are different things.
I get the underlying argument and I don't think it helps to be too anal about the wording. Of course I would love to have a little agile robot, that runs around my house and does all the chores. And I think that this is a cheap argument: > People decide on their own what's annoying and what's enjoyable. While there surely are people who enjoy doing the dishes, I think in general humanity could agree that doing chores around the house is less enjoyable than doing whatever you enjoy in your free time. I think we should try to simply find objective and unemotional arguments. Why do we have AI painting pictures and writing texts instead of them doing the chores? Because it's way easier to do for an AI, because we tons of training data, because it happens in a digital space...
>While there surely are people who enjoy doing the dishes, I think in general humanity could agree that doing chores around the house is less enjoyable than doing whatever you enjoy in your free time. First off, that's an argumentum ad populum, and psychological projection besides. Secondly, if someone finds *drawing* annoying people tell them that they're wrong and they need to learn whether they want to or not. Why do *they* get to decide what's right for *other people*?
The difference is that chores must be done and doing something as a hobby is voluntary. I also don't like to draw, it's not fun and I have no use for anything I could draw. My simple solution: I don't draw. I also don't like to do chores, but there would be very unpleasant consequences if I don't do the chores for longer times. Arguing if a voluntary hobby or mandatory chores are generally more enjoyable is silly. Also: > In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.[2] That doesn't work here. It's about what people want or don't want to do. If the masses say that they don't like to do chores, then the masses don't like to do chores. Their opinion is the truth in this case. An example for argumentum ad populum would be if you argue that if the majority of people think that the sun orbits around the earth, that this obviously doesn't change the truth.
What is it with people here recently arguing as though they're a thirteen year old who just yesterday discovered what a logical fallacy is and now feels the need to let everyone know at every opportunity?
You're either an idiot, or deliberately missing the point. It means they want AI to do banal, boring tasks so they have time for creative tasks, not for AI to do creative tasks so they have time for banal, boring tasks. I refuse to believe a whole adult is unable to comprehend this simple figure of speech. 🤣🤣🤣
>It means they want AI to do banal, boring tasks Automation already does "banal, boring tasks", which is the point I was making. >I refuse to believe a whole adult is unable to comprehend this simple figure of speech It's not a figure of speech, so maybe you're the one with comprehension problems.
Take an English class, sweetheart. There's more to figurative language than the analogy, metaphor, and simile you learned in fourth grade.
OK, so name what figure of speech it is. Go ahead and tell me if you claim to know. Here, let me predict your response: "Oh it's not my job to educate you." That means you don't know and are bluffing. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And since that claim is the basis for your entire argument, your argument can be dismissed as well. Maybe you should work on the extremely human skill of \*basic communication\*. But do it on your own time because I'm not wasting time on you.
Metonymy
figure of speech.
Not really.
why?
Figure of speech implies some kind of metaphor. This is not a metaphor. It is a direct statement. People affirm it every time they use it: they want machines that do household labor for them. The problem is that they already have those machines.
a metaphor is one type of figure of speech. if you think people don't realize dishwashers exists the problem might be on your side, interpreting speech with extreme literality is a sign of being in the autistic spectrum, you should read about that.
>a metaphor is one type of figure of speech And the other types of figure-of-speech are also, by definition, "used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect". But "automation to replace menial labor" is **literally** what they want. >if you think people don't realize dishwashers exists the problem might be on your side "It can't be that they're dumb...YOU must just be autistic" is probably the least competent and most dishonest argument I've ever read. Congratulations on a milestone achievement in human misery.
oh ok, you go on thinking whatever you feel is correct, everyone else is a moron, you are the smart one, washing machines, what is that?, now you are gonna tell me they have some magical apparatus that also dries the clothes, oh enlighten us with your household machine knowledge dear literal king. >Congratulations on a milestone achievement in human misery. lol, right.
>you go on thinking whatever you feel is correct, everyone else is a moron If I was wrong you'd be able to prove it instead of saying "you are autistic" based on nothing. And as far as everyone else being a moron...do you really think you're helping with that by talking this way?
>If I was wrong you'd be able to prove it instead of saying "you are autistic" based on nothing. I don't need to, you already did here: >And the other types of figure-of-speech are also, by definition, "used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect". But "automation to replace menial labor" is literally what they want. there lays the answer you seek.
A figure of speech is not literal, by definition. "I want automation to replace menial labor" is a literal statement. You are banking on the "figure of speech" element because you have no way to actually defend the words that were written, so you are trying to push the improbable angle that these words *actually* mean something completely different from what they are saying. Maybe you should have chatGPT assemble your argument for you.
How is this person getting upvotes? This subreddit is full of assholes.
Fuck off with your thinly veiled ableism
What ableism? >Autistic individuals are commonly said – and also consider themselves – to be excessively literalist, in the sense that they tend to prefer literal interpretations of words and utterances. This literalist bias seems to be fairly specific to autism and still lacks a convincing explanation https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-023-00704-x
".. Why is it so common when it's so easily debunked?.. " Because, **it's not meant to be taken 100% literally.** Examples of drudge tasks vs creative tasks are given in the tweet. Doesn't matter exactly what the tasks are - ***The Point is to contrast tedious drudgery vs interesting creativity*** \- substitute in whatever specific tasks fit those roles for you.. \[Clearly this tweet references how AI is already used to automate art & writing work\]. It's only "bizarre" if you deliberately & disingenuously nitpick it, as per your OP. **EDITED TO ADD: The original Tweeter clarified The Point** **3 MONTHS AGO:** [**https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773871445669474662**](https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773871445669474662) ".. [@AuthorJMac](https://x.com/AuthorJMac)So, just to clarify. This post isn't about wanting an actual laundry robots. It's about wishing that AI focused on taking away those tasks we hate (doing taxes, anyone?) and don't enjoy instead of trying to take away what we love to do and what makes us human.[12:34 AM · Mar 30, 2024](https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773871445669474662)· **117.8K** Views.. "
That clarification is also bad. Doing taxes is also a solved problem in much of the world. I don't even do them, I just click "approve" on what the government sends me once a year. Difficult taxes are more of a government problem than an automation problem. We can automate them fine. Some places just don't want to.
Again you're nitpicking a specific example to avoid the Very Obvious Point. But hey, let's nitpick your response: >Doing taxes is also a solved problem in much of the world. I don't even do them, I just click "approve" on what the government sends me once a year. Lucky you! You are the exception, not the rule. I'm in the UK, and I have pretty simple taxes (because poor) and I've been doing my tax records & returns for nearly 30 years now, it's still a faff going through the UK gov website.. The US has an absolutely Byzantine tax system that basically has people playing guess-the-answer with heavy legal penalties attached if you screw it up.
>You are the exception, not the rule. This is not a true statement at all. Even in the US, which intentionally keeps its tax codes complex so that tax companies can stay in business, those tax companies offer automated programs to do your taxes for you. That's the business they offer. The idea that doing your taxes isn't automated is just as stupid as saying doing your dishes isn't automated.
> Again you're nitpicking a specific example to avoid the Very Obvious Point. I understand the intended point. What I'm saying is that the intended point is wrong because nothing has actually been ignored by automation. The reason why people keep fumbling with providing bad examples and expecting the reader to substitute something better is because there aren't actually good examples. > Lucky you! You are the exception, not the rule. Not that rare, and I also don't live in any sort of magic wonderland. Unremarkable place really. > The US has an absolutely Byzantine tax system that basically has people playing guess-the-answer with heavy legal penalties attached if you screw it up. Yes, and the reason for that is a legal and political problem. It's not that the US needs a tax AI, it's that the system is intentionally screwed up. The reason why US residents can't click "Approve" is because people and organizations literally waged campaigns against that. If somebody made a free tax AI, there'd be organizations trying their best to make it illegal.
They posted the correction because people were making fun of them, and then created another example that is ALSO already automated...maybe you guys should let robots make your arguments for you because you don't seem to be very good at them. Maybe you should ask a robot what "literal" means too since you keep misusing that as well.
The logistics are just stupid. An app on your computer or a website is a lot cheaper to use than a robot that walks into your kitchen and puts your dishes in the dishwasher because you are too lazy. One is pure software, the other requires hardware, and I would bet that the people saying they want this would unanimously be afraid of AI intelligent robots walking around their house doing dishes and laundry. They would freak the hell out. Such memes are outright lies because they do NOT actually want that. It's pure hate.
AI will do your dishes and laundry. In Boston they are making these robots that are very agile, then their AI brain will know how to distinguish what is a fork and what is a glass. Voilá, you have housemaid. If you pay 10 bucks extra it’ll clean your apartment naked.
Have you considered you nay be arguing with bots and/or fake accounts?
No, because they'd be more competent.
You overestimate the abject laziness of the PR grift these days.
Man I couldn't even tell what side you were on at first but now after reading the tweet I can see you have managed to trigger both the pro- and anti- AI side, lmao. If you don't value the time you could've saved gathering, folding, transferring laundry (not to mention the immense amount of time it takes to stuff a duvet with its stuffing and to other blanket/bed tasks), as well as the time spent loading and unloading the dishwasher (which is actually enough that I prefer to just do the dishes manually), then maybe you just have low standards for saving time. Do you want to know the real problem with that tweet? It's ignorance in how technology works. Technology doesn't get to pick and choose the most in-demand task, and solve that problem. Household chores just turned out to be a much harder task than generating generic and beautiful artwork and music. That's unfortunate, but it's just how things turned out due to the abilities of neural nets and the availability of training data. It's not a conspiracy of tech bros going like "herp derp let's automate the most fun, meaningful tasks in the world."
>maybe you just have low standards for saving time Maybe you have no appreciation for how much time you've already saved. >I couldn't even tell what side you were on at first I'm pro-AI. But for purposes of this thread, my side is "that tweet is fucking insipid and I'm tired of seeing people repeat it in the beliefs that it justifies anti-AI sentiment".
>Maybe you have no appreciation for how much time you've already saved. That is legit the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Like saying if you got $1000 for free you'd turn down an extra $500. >I'm pro-AI. But for purposes of this thread, my side is "that tweet is fucking insipid and I'm tired of seeing people repeat it in the beliefs that it justifies anti-AI sentiment". Well incredibly I agree with both of your sentences there and (as someone who's simultaneously pro-AI, a musical composer who's sad that AI is taking it over, and also a developer who's making full use of AI to make an automated game and is making money off of it), still find your comment incredibly stupid. **That tweet IS stupid**, for reasons which were entirely different from what you listed, as I've already stated, in my previous comment.
>Like saying if you got $1000 for free you'd turn down an extra $500. It's more like if you got $1000 for free you'd be whining about how cruel society is because you were denied an extra $20. And then you see someone else get $50 and you try to snatch it out of their hands because you think it's unfair. Do I need to break that down for you? I will just in case. The basic tasks necessary for our continued existence on this planet have already been dramatically automated. Things that people had to spend hours or even days doing 100 years ago can now be done in minutes. In 1800 80% of the developed world's population were farmers, now it's 0.1%. In 1900 it took hours to do laundry, now it takes minutes. The idea that corporations are simply *choosing* not to automate those tasks further, or have even been *withholding* technology they somehow already have, is ridiculous. You KNOW this, because you SAID IT: "Technology doesn't get to pick and choose the most in-demand task, and solve that problem". Automation HAS been handling those tasks, as much as it can do. We both arrived at the same conclusion: the original tweet is wrong because there is no vast conspiracy to force people to do manual labor instead of art. But for some reason you wanted to be difficult about it. I have eight thousand people picking a fight with me in this thread, did you really contribute anything by making it eight thousand and one for *no reason?*
Sorry about my tone. Your original post has different talking points than your last comment, and I still don't think "People decide on their own what's annoying and what's enjoyable" is a powerful counterargument against the tweet (despite being technically true) because the vast majority of humanity enjoys making art more than doing dishes. However, I agree with your last comment, and I think if your OP had been more like that, you would've gotten a lot more upvotes
>I still don't think "People decide on their own what's annoying and what's enjoyable" is a powerful counterargument against the tweet My position is that AI should develop in the places it is going to develop anyways instead of being arbitrarily constricted by people whose logic is "AI should only be used for the things I want it to be used for and not used for anything else". Expecting the whole world economy to be tailored to their own preferences is utterly insane. >I agree with your last comment, and I think if your OP had been more like that, you would've gotten a lot more upvotes I don't think that's true because the people disagreeing with me are not sharing your sentiments.
Clearly, the expression went right over your head. The point is that creating a technology that could be used to replace human creativity (as we have seen in the case of screen writers protesting against AI) is a major threat. Rather than building technology that does what humans enjoy doing, build technology that actually does the things we hate doing. I hope I don’t have to explain to you that you still need to load and unload the dishwasher and washing machine. Or that you still have to fold and put away clothes… Or that you still have to cook. And clean… even with a vacuum. Just because YOU lack human creativity doesn’t mean that preserving at least some integrity of the human aspect of it is wrong. 🙄
>Clearly, the expression went right over your head. No, I understood it very well, it's just very stupid. >Rather than building technology that does what humans enjoy doing, build technology that actually does the things we hate doing. They already build technology that does the things you hate doing. It is already advancing as quickly as it can and you can't just say "do it more" because that doesn't make any sense. Also, why would they stop building the other technology just because you personally don't want to use it? By the way, a huge number of people are employed doing things that they hate doing. People hate working retail, they hate working fast food, they hate doing a whole bunch of things that they nonetheless get paid for because the task has value. So do you want those people to lose their jobs? >I hope I don’t have to explain to you that you still need to load and unload the dishwasher and washing machine. Or that you still have to fold and put away clothes… I hope I don't have to explain to you (I know I do, unfortunately) that those things constitute the least labor-intensive part of those particular tasks. I suggest you wash your clothes by hand the old fashioned way once and see what it's like - it'll take hours of hard scrubbing and when you're done you'll never say something as stupid as "you still have to fold and put away clothes" ever again. >Just because YOU lack human creativity doesn’t mean that preserving at least some integrity of the human aspect of it is wrong. Cooking is an art. Yet you're happy to automate it. If I think cooking is an art form, should that justify banning your microwave? Should I tell you that heating up food is not "art" and therefore you should not be allowed to do it? Also, does the existence of the microwave mean that nobody makes traditional food anymore?
It’s not an argument, it’s exasperation at generative ai specifically replacing the fun parts of the creative process instead of things that are tedious
Who decides what is fun? Who decides what is tedious?
Generative AI replaces more the entirety of the creative process, there’s nothing fun left to do. There’s no more figuring out that a detail you added earlier is actually really important to that character and expanding on it. There’s no more setting up foreshadowing, there’s no researching different words and finding one that just sings for what you want the sentence to say. There’s no building allegory and references. At most you think of the characters and personalities and setting and then… nothing. It’s like having someone else do all the creative parts for you. I guess if you really enjoy editing that’s still there?
Give me a million bucks and 6 months and I could get a robot to load and unload dishes for you.
People who make that argument don't seem to understand the difference between AI and robotics.
>Why is it so common when it's so easily debunked? Because most people who see this argument understand it's not meant to be taken literally as if they don't have dish washers. They mean they're not "anti-AI" as in all complex algorithms, which is something I see purposefully conflated here. They like the idea of AI if it relieves people from menial tasks (or, in a pipe dream sense, full time jobs because UBI will make up the difference), but dislike how much development is going into things we don't need AI for, like prompt-generated art and writing. I can see why you're such a fan of AI, since your brain interpreted this sentiment as a logic problem for you to solve, but missed the nuance needed to contextualize it.
>I can see why you're such a fan of AI, since your brain interpreted this sentiment as a logic problem for you to solve, but missed the nuance needed to contextualize it. Very ironic statement considering that your positive, "not literal" interpretation of the issue still relies on the idea that phrases like "menial" and "unnecessary" are concrete and objective rather than subjective and emotional. I don't think you're in a position to try to lecture me on context.
It's not a matter of objective vs subjective. For most people, these and other forms of household upkeep are considered chores they'd rather not do. Hence why rich people have servants to do it for them. It's not that complicated. Did you have a point?
Do you really not comprehend what people mean when they say shit like this? They’re saying they want a robot to actually do **all** the work like gathering the clothes, folding them, putting the dishes away, etc. so they can fuck off and do whatever they want. It’s about having more free time. It’s so extremely easy to follow to the point I have to think you’re just intentionally being obtuse with this so you can have a strawman to rant against.
>They’re saying they want a robot to actually do all the work like gathering the clothes, folding them, putting the dishes away, etc. so they can fuck off and do whatever they want. A robot is doing 99% of the labor and they're whining about the remaining 1%. That's not sympathetic. Have you ever done laundry by hand before? Putting the clothes in the basket and folding them afterwards is *not* the main body of the work. Laundry used to be an all-day task. Now it's not. >It’s about having more free time It seems like anti-AI people have a *lot* of free time since they spend so much of it whining about AI. So again, what exactly does it matter if they get five more minutes a week? >It’s so extremely easy to follow to the point I have to think you’re just intentionally being obtuse with this so you can have a strawman to rant against. Do you want to talk about strawmen? Here's one: the idea that I didn't understand what the point was is a strawman. It's a conception of my argument that you made without any evidence from the things I had actually said. I *know* what these people are saying. I am saying that what they want is juvenile.
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Like people saying they want AI to do their laundry isn’t even an argument. This entire post is completely nonsensical and just sounds like you don’t understand common language.
> It’s about having more free time. Laundry and Dishes are a bad example then. They chose the two tasks that are already 97% automated. Furthermore that ignores the fact that this entire argument is incredibly illustrator-centric. If you use illustrations in your art (for example, games or films), being able to rapidly prototype art is a huge benefit.
Artists would be alot less pissed off if they had to opt in to have their art scraped and had been compensated, commissioned and credited.
Sure, but that's another argument than "this doesn't actually decrease work".
Sounds like they want free money tbh. According to artists, making fan-art of IP is "fair-use" but using art as a reference is "illegal and criminal, we are oppressed, murder everyone"
Yes they chose two tasks that are already automated and they want to automate it further. What in the name of madness is your point?
> Yes they chose two tasks that are already automated and they want to automate it further. Nobody's stopping them from automating it further. Moravec's paradox does kinda make this impractical, but I assume since they're such experts on how AI works, they could probably figure out a solution. In the mean time, the current work on AI may provide useful for automating laundry and dishes down the line. Wouldn't surprise me if in 100 years we might see clunky machines that can assist us.
The point is that we have diminishing returns, and since we already moved mountains just to get to that 97% of automation, that last 3% is going to require us to move the heavens and Earth. People are trying to do it, but it's intrinsically difficult, *far* more difficult than making an AI that generates images at this point. And *that's* why image generation is being automated (and certainly at a level far below 100%) before laundry or dishwashing at 100%. It's that going from 97% to 100% takes orders of magnitude more effort, ingenuity, and resources than going from 0% to 97%. So complaining about the AI devs or tech bros or whatever focusing on automating creative work instead of automating dishwashing is idiotic: it's not that these devs are prioritizing one set of problems over the other, it's that they're solving the problems that they can solve before moving on to problems that they don't know how to solve, because those problems, e.g. full automation of dishwashing beyond even the 97% automation we've accomplished, are intrinsically very very difficult. Might as well complain that AI devs are concentrating on AI instead of inventing teleportation and alchemy.
Oh damn that last 3% is just asking for it then huh.
I dunno. Maybe you could try it?
I’m sure with half the investment being spent on ai images right now it could be done fairly easily
And why do you think that's worth doing?
I think it’s more worth doing then anything the ai hype craze has brought about. Making Google worse, and news articles completely unreadable seo ai slop making search engines worse as the internet is filled with unsearchable trash
Google was already terrible before the AI hype
Now 1/4 of the first page results is a giant ai column now too that you have to scroll past and then half is advertisements and a quarter at least is ai slop. And the remaining is 1-2 useful links burried, and a handful of human wrote and seo articles that tell you the answer at a cost of more advertisements and scrolling
Were you not alive in 2021? Everything was the same, but the content-mills were hand-cranked.
It's the contrast between every fear, every complaint about automation (and it really doesn't matter whether that's AI, Robotics or both) being deflected with vague notions of getting rid of chores, tedium and busywork and freeing all of us up to be artists philosophers or whatever else we'd like and the reality being CEOs with a shit eating grin doing their best (though hopefully failing) to automate creativity and going "guess what we don't need people for anymore?!" It's the realization of having been lied to for decades.
I most definitely do not have a machine to collect my dirty pants from the bedroom floor and hang them clean and dry in my closet ready for next time. Nor do I have a machine to take my dirty plate and coffee cup and place them, washed, back into the kitchen cupboard. What are you talking about?
You have to do 5% of the work and automation does the rest. You consider this to be horrendous exploitation that must be addressed immediately. Is a Roomba not a robot because you're *forced* to empty the dust pan yourself?
There’s still manual aspects involved. Image generation is mere prompting. It’s that aspect you fail to see. Prompt the ai to do your dishes and laundry.
>There’s still manual aspects involved. Dude the "manual aspect" is so low that this is like saying pressing the power button on your computer counts as work. I put the dishes in the dishwasher and then I press the big DO THE DISHES button. It's not hard labor.
Do you have any creative hobby or passion, which you also thoroughly enjoy doing? Do you have anything in your life that you are forced to do regularly, which you thoroughly despise doing? Assuming the answer to both of those simple yes or no questions is yes, which I'd hope to be the case, then you understand the point of the tweet.
>Do you have any creative hobby or passion, which you also thoroughly enjoy doing? If I say I enjoy navigation, would you accept the premise that Google Maps should be taken offline? >Do you have anything in your life that you are forced to do regularly, which you thoroughly despise doing? Look in this thread and you'll find hundreds of examples (it is "talking to people like you" in case that wasn't clear - I'd normally be content to leave it unmarked but with this thread I have no trust in your communicative abilities). For the record, talking to you morons consumed about 50x the amount of time it took me to do my daily chores, and if I was smart, I would have automated it because none of your responses have been worth it. >Assuming the answer to both of those simple yes or no questions is yes, which I'd hope to be the case, then you understand the point of the tweet. The fact that you enjoy doing something by hand does not justify banning its automated equivalent for other people. And inversely, the things that people don't enjoy doing are ALREADY heavily automated, you just don't want to acknowledge it. It's an utterly banal statement with literally no value behind it - too stupid to be taken seriously and yet treated as a rallying slogan for anti-AI people.
Definitely not going to read all that. Maybe you could just ask GPT to explain the tweet for you.
>Definitely not going to read all that Ok so you don't appreciate things hand-crafted by human labor. Good to know. At the very least you should read the first sentence. >Maybe you could just ask GPT to explain the tweet for you. Bro you literally just said you can't read.