Agree?

That’s a problem with unchecked capitalism, not AI. Remember how George Jetson was able to have a house in the sky, a suitcase spaceship, full home automation, a robot maid, and supported his whole family by pushing a button? Consider how many people lived and worked on the ground beneath the cloud cover to make that possible.

Remember how he also only worked 3 days a week, and had job security even though he was fired every episode?
George Jetson had a very good union.
There were no people down there. It was just a flooded planet
- They had an episode on the ground I thought.
Capitalism cannot ever be sufficiently checked while remaining Capitalism. Wage Labor and Capital does a good job of explaining why.

I'm seeing a lot of AI apologists in here. I want the leisure time required to create art, instead of being fucking burned out from working multiple jobs and spending all my available free time doing chores. Fuck AI, fuck the uncompensated artists and illegitimate theft of those works used to train the AI, and fuck you for normalizing it.

Let me make it clear first. Generative AI is not art. Prompt engineering is not a real job.
AI is just a tool. It is still waiting for an artist to use it to create art, just as a Photography or Photoshop image is not an art by itself.
But... training with images is the same as humans learning how to draw, though..... I know it's boring but what you said is boring too. We could fall back to the same conversation over and over because you start with the same conversation again and again.
FUCK AI, and also FUCK PEOPLE AGAINST AI, Good thing I hate everyone!
- "Prompt engineer" is on a lower level than "tarot fortune teller" for me. As a fortune teller, you are required to have people skills, as a prompt engineer, you just have to be an opportunistic dork.
- I mostly agree with this. I'm coming to think that in the future defining the word "art" for the context of a discussion would avoid a lot of the back and forth I'm seeing here and help these discussions be more productive.
AI apologists
Im not an "AI apologist" because theres nothing to apologise for.
Much like im not an "automatic loom apologist" or a "steam engine apologist"
- Apologist comes from the greek word "apologia", which means "speech in defense." Apologetics isn't apologizing, it's defending.
You cannot be an apologist unless there is a credible accusation to defend against.
Disagreeing with people that cannot coherently decide why they are upset is a good thing.
As for your comment, I agree that using art to train AI and then selling the result is a problem. Our legal framework needs to catch up on that. Personally, I do not see why it would not be copyright violation. That is clearly what it would be if a human did the exact same thing. A tool directed by a human does not seem so different from that. In my reading of copyright law, this misuse of AI may already be illegal.
We just need a few court cases to sort that out.
“I want the leisure time required to create art, instead of being fucking burned out from working multiple jobs and spending all my available free time doing chores.”
So, fair enough. Does this have anything whatsoever to do with AI? It really waters down your other point ( addressed above ).
If you are trying to agree with the OP concerning “laundry and dishes”, please think about your position. Those are two of the best examples for how technology has reduced time spent and effort expended on menial chores. I struggle to think of better ones. They also seem like prime candidates to be improved by adding AI to our existing mechanical devices.
What could the actual complaint be here? At worst, you can assume that AI will not help you with laundry and dishes. Any less extreme position will be that it probably will. The same can be said for any other menial task I can think of in my day-to-day life.
Sorry to be a rationality apologist but I am not going to line-up against totally misdirected outrage. Being mad does not make you right.
- Well said.
Don't be so bitter dude. Go out and be the change you want to see.
I want to be able to create all the things Ive dreamed of creating my.whole life without spending 4-8 years in fucking art school, saddling myself in debt for a skill that was virtually impossible to make a living off of. and that was BEFORE ai. AI has enabled me to create things that would have been fucking.impossible for me to.create on my own and and absurdly.expensive to have commissioned. Its allowed me to create things that would be literally.impossible without it.
I had ideas. I just couldn't afford to make it real. With ai I've been able to.
I never would have paid an artist to do what I've been able to done for myself. Even if I could have afforded it.
Ai may commodotize creativity but it democratizes art.
Jeans Pierre can still build a lifesized model.of Donald trump.out of tampons and I get an to cover my walls with viking chicks with huge fits that look like they're painted by van Gogh, and oil paintings of my face instead of whoever the model.was on history's greatest works.of art.
If you're an artist pissed off about ai taking your money: you probably wouldn't have made much anyway. Being an artist was always a reckless gamble.
- So your argument is that putting in effort and investing money for a skill is 'virtually impossible' and that artists shouldn't complain because they 'probably wouldn't have made much anyway'?
  Following your logic generative AI would never come to exist, because there wouldn't even be anything created for an AI to learn from.
- If you weren't creating before "AI", you're not creating after.
  It's like hiring a person to do art for you, but instead you took all their shit and used a machine to make a soup out of it.
  Get fcked.
- Preach. Art is a hobby, not a job, drawing shit does not produce any value for anyone. Lithium mines and McRib cook lines is where artists belong under any economic system.

capitalism is the reason why AI is doing art

- It's good enough that people won't hire artists to do their art. Are you a corporate suit who needs mock ups of a certain idea or product? Have an unpaid intern spend 5 hours prompting Sora AI to produce hundreds of, and sort down to 5, images that you can use on your post-golf lunch meeting tomorrow afternoon
- You seriously think people wouldn’t do for free what others require pay for under any other socio-economic society?
  Oh, right…. Capitalism is to be blamed for…. Everthing ever.
  Don’t get me wrong. Capitalism sucks, but let’s not dilute the water.
- If it's not art then what are artists afraid of?
- Similar to the discussion on forgery being art or not? (for example)
- Good. I will keep calling AI images art because most artbros are just capitalists under a thin veil of spiritual nonsense
Capitalism is the reason why AI doing art is a problem.

I like washing my dishes and do the laundry (but not washing clothes by hand, that we left for good). I feel like some manual labor each day leaves a breathing room for my mind when I don't scroll or consume content or work with my mind exhausted and occupied. It reminds me of how Don Carleone liked his garden work in the book. Just a simple labor with evident results.

The problem here that I see is that people who are the most influential and interested in these AIs most, like Muskie or Altman, never did their dishes or clothes, so this labor doesn't exist for them. Their impotency to feel, to create art, to write, to make jokes is what makes them create an AI for these tasks and since they can't tell good from bad there, they are happy with them. We don't have a soulless AI, we have an AI created for these soul-lacking suits who've never done their dishes or joked at themselves.

That's not an informed opinion, just a funny thought I had from this post <3

Keep talking like that and they're going to take your asshole certificate away.
- They can try.
  I have an unused piece of land where I wish to grow cucumbers next spring and try fertilization with billionaires to compare it to other plots.
  I think they'd give me other worthy naming ideas as their legs get sucked up in the grinder.
I like washing my dishes and do the laundry (but not washing clothes by hand, that we left for good). I feel like some manual labor each day leaves a breathing room for my mind when I don’t scroll or consume content or work with my mind exhausted and occupied. It reminds me of how Don Carleone liked his garden work in the book. Just a simple labor with evident results.
I think the point is that folks of a certain age have seen time and again how instead of tech advances "making our lives easier" they are instead used to increase expectations of "productivity". Here, the path we're on doesn't lead to more time to create art (or to choose what "simple labor" you might find fulfilling as a hobby), it leads to expectations to produce more for the 1% with the same amount of time we had before, or excuses about how an overworked department doesn't need to be expanded since there's AI now, or etc etc.

It’s been absolutely fascinating watching people catch on to what has happened literally every fucking time we invent paradigm-shifting advances.

"AI" is just the new sales buzzword to replace "smart" devices since they probably finally realized that the shit they were pushing out wasn't all that smart just because it required an app to function.
Yes like NFTs, for example. /s
- They have made scamming infinitely more productive. Just another success story.
- WE'RE STILL EARLY!! HODL

TL;DR:
The misuse of technology in capitalism threatens jobs and financial stability. Affordable robots and AI could either enhance our lives or lead to unemployment and misery. Proposals like an automation tax could fund education or basic income. We need good legislation to ensure technology benefits everyone, not just profits. Recent steps like Europe's AI act offer a little hope, but a lot more political action is urgently needed.

Long Version:
From my perspective, the core of the problem is not the technology, but the reckless way we use it in our capitalistic system. Or let's say, let it be used.

For example, a light load robotic industrial arm costs merely 1k to 5k € nowadays. The software for it is cheap as well.
What the business owners and managers see, is not an awesome new invention which could help to propel humanity into the future of a robotic utopia, but cheap labour force, aiding them to cut jobs in order to maximize their profit margin as human labour is expensive.

I am sure AI and robots are our future, one way or another, whether we want it or not.
But I would like to see a future where AI and robots help us to increase our quality of life, instead of making us unemployed and endagering our financial survival.

There are various ideas how this could be achieved. I don't intend to go way too in-depth here, so just as an example:
an automation tax: estimate to which amount a business can be automated and then demand a tax proportional to how much the business was automated. Such a tax could then be used to finance higher education for people or a universal basic income. Maybe at first just an income for those who can't get a decent job due to automation.

We had similar developments as those we see now with virtually all technological advances, where human labour was replaced by more and more clever machines. Jobs where lost due to that but it could still be seen as a good thing in general.

An important difference is the level of required skills though. Someone who's job it was to go around a street and light gas lanterns every day, extinguishing them some time afterwards, was replaced by electric light grids. A switchboard operator at a telephone company, who connected people manually, got replaced by clever hardware. And so on. Those people didn't require high skills for their job though. They had it a bit easier to find another one.

This becomes increasingly difficult as AI and technology in general advances. Recently we see how robots and AI are capabable of tasks where higher skills are necessary. And it's probable that this trend will incresingly continue. At some point, we will have AI developing new and better AI. An explosion of artificial intelligence can then be expected.

It's less a problem as long as people have job prospects in higher skilled work levels. But that will, for a while at least, not be the case. This has different reasons:

As I see it, we have a "work pyramid", where the levels of the pyramid represent the required skills and the width of the pyramid levels represent the amount of available jobs. In other words, there is a way higher demand for low skilled work than for high skilled work. (BTW, what I mean by work skill is the level of specialisation and proficiency, often connected to more intense and long training and education.)

As recent developments in AI now slowly creep into higher and higher levels, people may start investing in their own education in order to even get a job. But higher skilled work is less available making it increasingly tight and problematic to get one.

There may of course also be an effect observable where new jobs are created by enabling more even higher skilled jobs due to the aid of AI, but I think this has limitations. On the one hand, the amount of jobs created that way might be insufficient. On the other hand, people might not want to or can't get an education for that.

The latter needs to be emphasized from my perspective. There are a lot of people who simply don't want to study for a decade in order to get a PhD in something so that they can get some highly specialised job. Some people like the more simple jobs, those requiring more manual than cognitive labour. And that's totally fine. People should be happy and like the work they do.

Currently, not all people even have access to that kind of education. Be it due to limitations in available places at universities / colleges, or due to financial reasons or even due to physical or mental health reasons.

You may now understand, why I see that we are going to create more misery if we don't change the way we handle such things.

I would like to see humanity in that robotic utopia. No one needs to work, as most work is done by AI and robots. But everyone can get a fair share and live a happy life however they would like to live it. They can work, take up some interest and pursue it, but no one needs to.

But currently, this is probably not going to happen. We need good legislation, need to create a system where advancements in AI and robotics can be made without driving people into financial ruin. We need to set those guarding rails which help to guide us towards such a robotic utopia.

That's why I am advocating for putting this topic higher on political priority lists. Politics worldwide don't have it even set on their agenda. They are missing crucial time frames. And I really hope they'll wake up from that slumber and start working on it. I've got some hope. Europe recently passed their first AI act.
It's a start.

Sincerely,

A roboticist working in AI and robot research.

There are roughly two possible outcomes of automation in general:
The utopical one is that as the robots, AI and so on, do more and more of the work, people in general get more free time: i.e. the productivity gains of automation are distributed and benefit people in general.
The dystopical one is that automation just leads to fewer jobs and more people suffering because they can't afford a roof over their heads or food on their plates: i.e. the productivity gains of automation are kept by the people who own most assets, including the machines that do the automation, hence most people will just lose their livelihoods
For all we've seen so far, in the current political and economic system we have - were the gains of work (be it automated or not) mainly end in the hands of asset owners (and, remember asset ownership, which is a curve that pretty much follows the wealth one, is incredibly unequal) - we're well on the dystopia track.
I don't think this is at all something that can be solved from the side of Technology, nor do I think that the consequences of natural improvement in automation technology being dystopia are the responsability of the Techies, though I would not at all be surprised if the Techies are, along with other groups (for example, immigrants), be made scapegoats by the people who made automation productivity increases lead to dystopia rather than utopia.
A roboticist working in AI and robot research.
Thank you for representing your field better than the other guy in this discussion. This gives me some hope that there are folks involved who can see the forest for the trees.
Affordable robots and AI could either enhance our lives or lead to unemployment and misery.
See also Mashall Brain's "Manna"
Yes but the artbro luddites will not read this. They are narcissists who are upset that some kid with a computer in Argentina can now generate anime titties instead of paying $300 for them to draw it and they are fighting the realization of how bullshit their industry was from the get-go

I cannot overstate how much I want a robot butler to take my dirty dishes and fill and start my dishwasher for me. Or just wash the dishes "by hand". It's not that filling the dishwasher takes a long time, but it's just boring work.

I just can’t fold laundry. Everything else I’m fine.
leave me alone and let me try to learn how to play a dobro

I don’t think I could agree with this more if I tried.

I don't mind AI being able to do all 4, and humans can use the AI tools to create their own art, or do it without them if they want. But I definitely agree I want manul labour done by robots.

Side note: has this woman never heard of a dishwasher? Minimal manual labour required.

My dishwasher has remote start functionality if I download the app. But what I really need is remote-load functionality.
- Honest question: what is the upside of having a remote start functionality on a dishwasher? You have to load the dishwasher before starting, so you need to be at home anyway and it's not like you have to schedule your dishwasher to finish right when you're coming home from work or something. I can't see the benefit.
Dishwasher requires less labour yes. But would be nice with zero labour though.
AI tools to create their »own« art
- I would like an AI tool that lets me easily make the art in my mind, skin to how a dishwasher washes dishes. Like, the labor reduction would be a huge boon.
- I use AI tools to repair audio. Where’s the line between me doing it and computers doing it?
- AI tools to create art to be exclusively consumed by AI tools? I approve.
There are plenty of places without a dishwasher, I just moved from an apartment that didn't have one. Hand washing was a very time consuming chore and we only barely escaped the poverty trap so buying one was out of the question, and if we did, it would be a small portable one because it was just an apartment. I'm not adding value for free to the landlord charging double what would have been barely reasonable in a non-enshittified society.

AI doesn't make you art, it makes art for other people, based on yours

It makes media. And it makes it very quickly and cheaply. Who cares if it's any good? We can substitute quality for quantity when we no longer have to even pretend to cover cost of living of artists.
Then, once we no longer need all these surplus humans, we can put AI to its real job. See: Israeli's Lavender Program
- But it's got such a nice name! How could that be?!?!
  Curious if they used the name because it's a common ingredient in soaps.
  You know to do a little ethnic cleansing.
  Or, how you say..genocide.
For profit!

Laundry and dishes are much harder than Art.

And we had washing machines for years...

For a LLM? That statement might be true. For a Human? It's absolutely not.
- Laundy and dishes require precision, art doesn't.

Robotics researchers agree but they can't get it to work yet. Simple tasks as cleaning tables, loading dishwasher and folding laundry have been tried for the last two decades with very limited success. The ones that do succeed are usually tele-operated for a demo.

Does anyone still use scruboards and clotheslines for laundry? What about only using the sink for dishes (that one is a bit more common)? I feel automation already hit the bad things she is talking about.

Scrub boards, no, at least not in developed countries, if people wash by hand then because the fabric is fragile. Clotheslines, very much yes. Probably going to change with condensing wash-dryers becoming more common: Don't use hot air so you don't have to worry so much about the fabric, don't use up additional space.
The American perspective on that kind of stuff is seriously uncommon, somehow not having a dryer is a sign of poverty but having a detachable shower head and duvet covers is unimaginable luxury.
- So, you are saying that with a little AI added to her existing appliances, there will be even fewer reasons for manual intervention and more time for her art and writing?
They've tackled part of the process. You still need to clear the table yourself, get rid of the large solid food scraps and saturated fats, load/empty the dishwasher. You then have things that need scrubbing, or material that can't handle heat well, and those need to be cleaned manually.
I have a dishwasher, but find that I rarely use it because the time it saves is negligible compared to manual washing. The only time it's helpful is after something like a dinner party where there are a lot more dishes than usual so space is the limiting factor.
Yeah I think she could've used some better examples for things that aren't yet automated. Something like taxes, or fighting with your insurance.
- Those things are automated in most developed countries.
I still wash dishes by hand but it's mostly because my washer isn't that great and I just haven't bothered replacing it.
My in-laws live in the developing world so they air dry their clothing.

I want AI (well, a robotic helper) for laundry and housework. Technically I've already got a dishwasher which is close enough there.

I'd love to have AI help me with making art just like other tools, but not take over it

Yes but you see the billionaires who own everything want the AI to make all the art and writing so they don't have to pay you and so they can keep all the money they (not you) make off of art and writing.

Damn straight

While I'm not exactly a fan of AI, it does make sense that the first things we're able to replicate with AI, however terribly, are intellectual things like art and writing. While AI might be able to understand how to wash dishes, it would need a way of interacting with the physical dishes to do so, which goes beyond something a computer program can do while confined to a computer.

I wouldn't be surprised if future dishwashers and washing machines end up having little cameras and sensors so that AI can determine how best to wash them, but if anything that feature would be implemented more for collecting your private information than for any real washing benefit. Plus you'd still have to load and unload the machines - if we wanted AI to handle everything, we'd need robots, which would be waaaay more expensive, and likely something only the richest would be able to afford anyway.

- Computer science has been referring to things less impressive than LLMs as "AI" for decades. For some reason there's been a weird reaction to GPTs ever since ChatGPT became public.
- I mean, narrow AI vs general AI.
- Hi I’m here to wake you up and point you in the direction of AI integration in adobe premiere and Da Vinci resolve lol

Abso-fucking-lutely!

Honestly I just wish companies would stop trying to shove half baked AI into everything. I work for an IT consulting company and every vendor in the tech sector is shoving AI down our throats right now, and most of it, including Google's, just isn't ready yet. And they want our clients to pay subscriptions for the privilege of beta testing it. It's quite exhausting.

I mean I certainly agreed with the sentiment, but this is largely describing dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers, which were invented some time ago.

Part of the reason these take time is that a lot of folks are resource conscious (as am I). So we want the dishwasher to be efficiently loaded, the clothes to be dried on a clothesline if possible, the white/colors to be separated (increasea the longevity of the clothes), etc. Sacrificing all of these things makes these chores really very quii, if you can afford to have them all in your home.

And in fact, the cost of these things is relatively low --- in my high COL area, it's not that people can't afford these things, it's that they can't afford a place big enough to accommodate them. Which is its own issue altogether...

Please don't fix the quii typo. Instead, could you define it, and then submit it to Urban Dictionary? Because that's an awesome word!
- No; as the person who spotted the typo, it is your sacred duty to define quii.

What country is it? (Dish)washing machines were invented long time ago.

Woaahh, we're half way there.

Whoa oh, living on a prayer.

Arc of a Scythe series, I want that to be reality

Overview of the world in the series (not necessarily the plot itself, no real spoilers):

Sentient AI is born and assumes leadership of Earth. It's existance causes the toppling of governments around the world, after the people realize the AI could do a way better job than the humans at running the world. Pretty much the only thing not left to the Thunderhead (the AI) is the death of humans. Humans have achieved immortality, and thus something needs to cull the population. Thus the scythedom is born, consisting of people chosen to pretty much legally murder people. The world is a utopia, everything is damb near perfect, everybody has what they need, there's no crime whatsoever, global warming is solved, there's no corruption or war, and people live long lives. The only issues, explored within the books, are the Scythedom left in control of the humans, and although to a much lesser extent, the lack of motivation of the human species. After conquering death, the people of this world don't really understand the art of the mortal age, with strong emotions based around love, death, and other such topics. You have a very long time to live, they don't really feel a need to acomplish everything in their short lives as mortal mankind did. There was also kind of a genocide of those born in the mortal age but uh... we don't talk about that... (genuinely wasn't talked about much in the books).

I feel like even if the most optimistic predictions of AI capability come to pass, we still got like, a thousand years of continual slogging through human struggles before we see anything close to massive social shifts that would make the world an unrecognizable utopia like so many works of science fiction portray in the coming century or even decades in some flights of fancy.
AI's development has only made me realize how ridiculously primitive and flawed our species really is. I doubt we will see anything but a larger spectrum of inequality, strangeness and suffering and enclaves of super-wealthy assholes fellating each other around the clock.
Sounds like an interesting read

Ironically, laundry and dishes are two of the best examples of tedious work that machines are already largely doing for us. Laundry in particular probably did more to free up her time for “art and writing” than almost anything else. AI will make both even better.

The complaint here is not that she will not have time for art and writing. Certainly it is not that she will have to spend MORE time doing laundry and dishes. The complaint is that fewer people will be willing to pay for her art and writing.

That is a very different complaint.

It is well written and does its job of misleading well. She may be quite a good author.

I agree with the first half, then I got lost

Wow found the bitter one here guys!
The creation of art is as important as the art itself for many (most?) artists. If not more.
Everything isn't about posting stuff on social media lol.
- i am hugely suspicious of anyone suggesting that "AI art" is art in the first place, and that it can replace real art made by actual people. just shows a fundemantal lack of understanding of arts and values.
  imagine that someone bought the Mona Lisa from a seller for a bajillion dollars. they carefully study it, and agree to the seller's claim that it is the original by LDV. then it goes through a third party examination and they tell the buyer that it's a replica. do you think the buyer would just say "oh well" or will they sue the seller?
  mind that they looked at it, studied it, and concluded that this money is what it's worth. but there's no way they would think it's worth the same after the revelation, even though it's still the same painting that they bought.
  no matter what these numbskulls think, we care about where art comes from. we care about intent, source and the conditions in which a piece of art is made as much as the contents of it. anyone who thinks a bunch of RNGs taped together can come up with "art" doesn't pass the human test for me.
this is stupid on so many levels.
How did you manage to get "I want other artists to do my laundry and dishes" from that post?

Nobody stops her from doing art and writing.

Too bad tech businesses don’t give a fig about what you want.

This is the best take on the matter I've ever seen.

I get the sentiment, but generative AI isn't stopping anyone from making art. And you're going to have to dedicate the same amount of time to chores with or without it. :/

haha as If Ai was ever going to stop at laborious tasks.

it was beating chess champions long before writing and art came into the picture....

Chess engines don't use machine learning
edit: ya know, I get why y'all would downvote my other comments but this one is just a fact.
- Machine learning is only one AI technique. AI research has been going on since the 1950’s. They’ve gone through many different approaches with widely varying results. Symbolic and logic based AI, expert systems, minimax, Monte Carlo tree search, and many different machine learning approaches.
- regardless of the backend mechanism of the particular Ai, it was still always going to encroach on multiple disciplines.
  maybe robots can do dishes but Ai is more than a robot.
- This is just wrong. Yes they do.
  Take stockfish for example. It's probably the most well known engine. It uses specialized neural networks to evaluate board positions.
That feeling of dread when you blunder a piece against stockfish and it doesn't even take it but instead pushes a random pawn. That's when you know you're really in the shit.

Is this in a... um... newspaper?!

Yet again artists have the most braindead possible take on AI.

Like I seriously dont understand how even "not a computer person" people dont understand that making a plug in for photoshop or an app that turn you into an anime character is completely fucking different to building a robot that does your chores for you AND that we already have robots that do your fucking dishes and laundry for you.

Let me frame this discussion in a different light.
Why are we spending billions of dollars and countless hours of labour developing software that generates images, something that is fundamentally pointless for any actual product application outside of maybe prototyping stuff?
The whole point of art is human expression and experience, why are we putting all of this experience in a blender and putting it into a machine learning algorithm just to pump out rainbow slop?
Sure, on some level I appreciate the concept of the tech overall and there was a time where I thought it was cool and could lead to something new... what ends up happening though, is just giving idiots with businesses degrees more reasons to wring everything of substance from culture.
- generates images, something that is fundamentally pointless for any actual product application outside of maybe prototyping stuff?
  What? You're legitimately arguing that generating images has no applications? Thats a pretty hot take.
  why are we putting all of this experience in a blender and putting it into a machine learning algorithm just to pump out rainbow slop?
  Again, a very... interesting take.
  So take an example. You are a solo game dev, you're good at programming and game design, but you're not an artist and you need art for your game. So you can either invest a couple thousand hours of your time to learn to do it yourself, or you can spend money you might not have to get someone to do it for you, or now, you can have AI generate the art for you.
  AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people, which is objectively a good thing, but people like you want to gatekeep it for arbitrary reasons.
  and if the whole point of art is human expression like you say, well AI art doesnt stop you from creating your own art now does it? So why do you have beef with it?
Ah because a lack of understanding of tech is the only possible reason one might have for criticising the way society allocates priorities.
- congrats you missed the entire point of my comment.
  What op is doing is like saying "Why do we keep making Netflix shows instead of curing cancer???" Thats not a good criticism of societies priorities, because those things are not mutually exclusive and making a show on netflix is much easier than curing cancer.
  Its the same here. Its not like we are choosing to automate art instead of laundry, automating art is just orders of magnitudes easier.
I don't understand how you can miss that of course they are up in arms. The only thing anyone seems to want to use this tech for is to devalue their work.
(Aside from MS who wants to be sure I can cram more productivity for the 1% into my workday.)
- I work in a creative industry. Our artists are already using Photoshops generative AI in their work. Which has only made their lives easier. But then again, they are all highly educated and not terminally online.

Yes , that is what "AI" is supposed to solve for humans. Not for us to rely on it for out own creativity.

If AI does all the art and writing and doesn't use up all the fresh water, maybe we can make some kind of trade?

does no-one here know about washing machines with AI?

https://news.samsung.com/in/samsung-launches-its-ai-enabled-connected-ai-ecobubble-washing-machine-range-for-2022-with-ai-wash-machine-learning-adds-high-capacity-models

Smart washing machines are a disappointment. They solve very few of the problems I care about as a greedy person.
I don't need alerts on my phone when my clothes are done washing. I can manually set a water level.
What would be cool is putting your dirty clothes in a machine and coming back to a pile of clean, dry, folded laundry.
- I once had such a device from ACME but one time when I had to chase away a coyote while on E, I left it on and it folded all my stuff 1000 times into tiny dots.
- oh, sure, but still - they have "AI". which is what the useless person wanted.
Looks like HAL9000 we deserve, not the HAL9000 that we need...

No one's stopping you from making art if you want to, and you will be better at it than an AI.

build your own AI then

Yes, agree.

Kinda fucks up your whole "Fuck AI" thing then

Exactly.