You're not exactly winning me over with these "but these specific humans with noble professions are special and shouldn't be replaced" takes either.
I mean, what's this supposed to mean? It's totally fine to replace all those blue collar labourers with mass production factories, but replacing programmers and artists with AI is somehow a crime against humanity? Absolute nonsense.
This discourse does nothing but betray one's own sense of superiority over the lesser humans. Enlightened thought workers who thought their positions were unassailable and their leverages secured, but were proven wrong by the very technologies they helped create.
It's got nothing to do with preferences and everything to do with reality, and the reality is AIs are changing the world and the only hope left for us humans at this point is that they will somehow enable us to achieve a post-scarcity society.
> This discourse does nothing but betray one's own sense of superiority over the lesser humans
What are you even talking about?
The comment you were responding to said:
> Delegating the thinking and feeling parts of the human experience, mechanizing human creativity itself, is a direct attack on human dignity.
Everyone can and should engage in creativity, on whatever scale. No one in this thread you're responding to privileged a certain type of worker or even a certain type of creativity (let alone the "experience" and "dignity" the comment broadened it to).
Also just real weird post. The relative worth as humans of doctors and blue collar labourers vs artists and programmers was not the matchup I was expecting, but I guess it's ok because we're all equally garbage in your eyes? FWIW, I'm hoping for more from us than accidentally ending up in a human zoo.
> Everyone can and should engage in creativity, on whatever scale.
But not everyone will, absent economic incentives.
Calling the mechanization of human creativity a "direct attack on human dignity" is a revealing moral judgement.
What makes human creativity so special that it must be so thoroughly protected against technological progress?
Why "human creativity" specifically, and not any of the other categories of human activity?
Why is it "an attack on human dignity" to mechanize it?
What if it's the opposite? What if this is the technology that will finally free us from all the other indignities we suffer? What if it's the technology that could create a post-scarcity society?
> No one in this thread you're responding to privileged a certain type of worker or even a certain type of creativity
Somehow I just don't see anyone make these kinds of sad posts about displaced skilled craftsmen or poor factory workers or any other economically displaced human.
People make a few documentaries here and there so that history is documented, but we all accept that they are gone as a byproduct of the inevitable technological march.
Why should "creatives" be an exception?
> but I guess it's ok because we're all equally garbage in your eyes?
I never said we are all equally "garbage". I said we are all equally replaceable, and that to believe otherwise is to betray a sense of superiority over those who were replaced.
Even the CEOs will meet their match in the end. Stopping before their replacement would be the true crime against human dignity.
I mean, what's this supposed to mean? It's totally fine to replace all those blue collar labourers with mass production factories, but replacing programmers and artists with AI is somehow a crime against humanity? Absolute nonsense.
This discourse does nothing but betray one's own sense of superiority over the lesser humans. Enlightened thought workers who thought their positions were unassailable and their leverages secured, but were proven wrong by the very technologies they helped create.
It's got nothing to do with preferences and everything to do with reality, and the reality is AIs are changing the world and the only hope left for us humans at this point is that they will somehow enable us to achieve a post-scarcity society.