You're viewing a single thread.
Unfortunately, it's more like this
Ya know I always wondered why corporations where so hell bent on targeting replacing creatives and an idea just hit me.
It’s to reduce the number of people with actual creative skills, so those creatives can’t make work that spreads an anti corporate messages.
Execs aren't hell-bent on anything apart from making money.
If they could replace every job in the world with AI (except their own) then of course they would, but they can't because AI cannot do every job.
AI cannot stack supermarket shelves. AI cannot make coffee. AI cannot wait tables.
But AI certainly can produce pictures and text and music - to some questionable degree of "quality" - and so it's these creative jobs which are being stolen.
And that's exactly the irony the comic is pointing out. The creative things are what humans actually want to do, but those are the very things we are being replaced in.
AI doesn't really create, it just copies and does style "mash ups". Right now people notice AI being weird and out of place. Eventually people will start to notice AI getting stale and repetitive instead.
That makes no sense. Hiring creatives allows them to contractually obligate them to not write anti corporate messages.
An unemployed creative cannot be controlled by contract.
Its more than that, but that's a part, and the rest is no less bleak.
i don't think it's that intentional, it's more like the creative arts don't have easy metrics for success and both the engineers and the executives are incapable of discerning art from slop