Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

petergabriel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 167 posts

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#51

Post by yinser »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #42
yinser wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A train is approaching on the tracks, on one track you create free energy, solve diseases, create a new dawn for human ingenuity and also some white collar jobs are removed, others are created. On the other track we continue to toil in the dirt.

The answer to this entirely depends on who it is gets to hop on board the “free energy, solves diseases” train. If the tracks continue on the current American path of widening inequality and declining lifespans, I’m sure plenty of people would be happy to see the whole thing derail.

American innovation, and innovation of all countries flows through the world. Reactor designs, fiber optic cable, the internet, wikipedia. These are a few examples of the old world. The new world will feature new achievements that will unlock more prosperity.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#52

Post by JumpCrisscross »

JenrHywy wrote: post #48
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers They find better things. Maybe agitating for a different economic system. Some countries will fail horribly at this. In any case, LLMs aren't coming for most writers or coders or scientists or medical researchers. They will help with our credentialing fetish.

Ah yes - what the world really need is less artists and more activists.

> what the world really need is less artists and more activists

That's not all they can do. And the line between artistry and activism is blurry at best. But yet, if your art can be replicated by Stability, it's no longer novel.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#54

Post by [deleted] »

gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

[deleted]

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#55

Post by dmix »

yinser wrote: post #37
gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

A train is approaching on the tracks, on one track you create free energy, solve diseases, create a new dawn for human ingenuity and also some white collar jobs are removed, others are created. On the other track we continue to toil in the dirt.

Ageed, the stakes of not doing this to appease some short term disruption is not worth the opportunity cost. Some might say we need better social support for lower wage jobs getting replaced by AI, but if we've learned anything from history is that humans (and especially gov) does not act until it was obvious it was needed yesterday.

I'm not willing to pretend that we'll somehow get basic income before the need and economic tradeoffs become very apparent. Democracy rarely ever works like that and the alternative isn't any prettier.

Regardless, like most tech/social evolution, we can't stop it even if we wanted to. Even if we try to slow it down it will probably just slow it down for some and build a bigger moat around the few with connections to power.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Taywee wrote: post #39
williamcotton wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists So does the world currently only listen to singer-songwriters on acoustic guitar at small local venues? The humanity in the consumption of art has been subject to mass commodification for centuries at this point. This process is driven by money and not love. Technology has nothing to do with it.

We've had big advancements before that allow people to do more with less, but this is a staggering leap. The jump from "you need to get a whole bunch of people together to practice and play music together" to "one person can make skilled music in their bedroom" isn't even comparable to "Hey AI, make me a reggaeton darkwave album performed by Kurt Cobain and Tiny Tim". We're not talking just more art here, or some peo…

> but this is a staggering leap

More than industrialization? Come on. It's staggering because it's impacting us.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#57

Post by mftb »

doug_durham wrote: post #47
mftb wrote: post #27

Peter Gabriel is fucking courageous. I love it. I'm a 50+ programmer. I can absolutely feel this shit pressing on me. Good. Are people right that there are ethical concerns, absolutely. We need to get busy realizing the potential and dealing with the issues.

I’m in your same demographic. However I see these technologies as career extenders, not career threats. I can learn things faster than ever and adapt to changes more easily.

That's awesome. That's exactly the kind of thinking that turns L's to W's.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ChatGTP wrote: post #17
brigadier132 wrote: post #12

Well said, this thing is here to stay. When I first played around with gpt-4 I was filled with immense dread. I, as many others have, immediately understood what kind of enormous societal impact this would have. But I put the question to myself, if I could magically wish this thing away, would I? I wouldn't. I understand the many that would, this thing completely upends the status quo. Massive swathes of people will…

If you think AI is a disaster, think about the potential for medical breakthroughs that can emerge from this. The “think of the good” argument is over played. Same was true for combustion engines, they will probably send us extinct. I’d like it if people just stopped with it. People aren’t idiots, they know good things and very bad things can be achieved.

> Same was true for combustion engines, they will probably send us extinct.

What? Because we weren't burning fossil fuels before cars?

Besides forgetting about trains, steamships and the coal-powered Industrial Revolution, you're ignoring the billions of lives lifted out of poverty.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#59

Post by echelon »

sterlind wrote: post #44
Taywee wrote: post #22

This wave of AI has the power to be incredibly transformative for good, but not given any of the current economic or copyright systems we have now. I don't know how any of the proponents can pretend that this isn't an abject disaster on the horizon for anybody who depends on copyright to make their living. This is the natural progression to the unnatural properties of the shared delusion of pretending like ideas are…

The last time we saw a copyright struggle like this was Napster. After a lot of ire we eventually landed on Spotify, shows, and merch. Musicians seem fine this time around, but graphic designers are in for a world of hurt. Artists and musicians mostly already starve, unless they're extremely lucky and famous.

Every class of artist will now be able do more than they could alone in the world before AI. They no longer need institutional capital to make big, ambitious works.

Graphics designers will have tools and will make movies and interactive fictions. They'll build their own following.

It'll look like YouTube and the rise of the YouTuber, except bigger and broader.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#60

Post by bugglebeetle »

yinser wrote: post #51
bugglebeetle wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to this entirely depends on who it is gets to hop on board the “free energy, solves diseases” train. If the tracks continue on the current American path of widening inequality and declining lifespans, I’m sure plenty of people would be happy to see the whole thing derail.

American innovation, and innovation of all countries flows through the world. Reactor designs, fiber optic cable, the internet, wikipedia. These are a few examples of the old world. The new world will feature new achievements that will unlock more prosperity.

Restating my point: prosperity for whom? The answer for the past 50 years has certainly not been “everyone” or even “most people” in wealthy countries like America.
Post reply on HN