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

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#61

Post by JumpCrisscross »

brigadier132 wrote: post #35
gwoolhurme wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I really hate this line of argument as well. We obviously understand it can have a lot of beneficial effects in society. It's a strawman to say that people don't see that. The problem is nobody seems to be properly discussing the bad things that can and will occur.

> We obviously understand it can have a lot of beneficial effects in society Really? Because nobody seems to be talking about them. You talk about how bad things "will" occur. What about bad things that are literally happening right now?

> What about bad things that are literally happening right now?

Our lives are good. No child loses sleep for the bogeyman under the neighbor's bed.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#62

Post by Taywee »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #38
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…

> 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. OK, I'll bite. How is the an abject disaster on the horizon for... let's say, novelists?

My wife is a novelist who widely participates in fiction writing communities, and a lot of competitions have had to stop taking submissions entirely due to AI work flooding all the submissions. There's been drama on and off recently with AI generated covers, too. Some waves have been made with people winning contests with AI generated short stories. Agents are absolutely inundated with AI queries, and it's only going to get worse as the technology gets better.

It's actually really scary for writers right now. You just have to look at the huge amount of AI generated attempts and think "what do we do when the writing gets really good? What do we do when most novels are mostly AI generated?"

People have spent decades working their ass off to get good and try to get their work sold, and they come out the end of this tunnel right into an era telling them that they're just about to be obsolete.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#63

Post by Quekid5 »

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.

... and streaming services being silos for content, so I'm not sure the 'last round' was even all that beneficial[0] in the long run. Anyway... RRRRR!

As to AI-generated content: Who knows?

[0] Towards humanity and creative endeavor in general.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#64

Post by RubyRidgeRandy »

spacephysics wrote: post #30
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…

I think we can look at history and see how revolutionary technologies changed the landscape of society. No one knows really the magnitude of AI, but if we take the two extremes, AI takes all our jobs, and AI is just some stats that has no real utility, we’ll probably land somewhere in the middle. Personally, I’m trying to learn these technologies to augment my current work. I’m treating it like going from using Notep…

I firmly believe that once ai is in a position to replace programmers and other white collar workers, it's more of "we're all fucked" moment. Society would have to so radically change once we reach even that infantile level of post-scarcity, when a large portion of society that loses their jobs, that we have to have serious discussions about what life is supposed to be about and what our places in society are.

when there is no more desire to be quenched, when there are no jobs to do, when we have solved all disease, what do we do? Man has been defined so much by his suffering and toil, that when we take it away we are in an environment that we are not prepared for in any kind of sense.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#65

Post by kennyloginz »

Is it not crazy, asks Mr Senior, that the piano maker is a productive worker, but not the piano player, although obviously the piano would be absurd without the piano player? But this is exactly the case. The piano maker reproduces capital, the pianist only exchanges his labour for revenue. But doesn’t the pianist produce music and satisfy our musical ear, does he not even to a certain extent produce the latter? He does indeed: his labour produces some- thing; but that does not make it productive labour in the economic sense; no more than the labour of the mad man who produces delusions is productive.

— Karl Marx in Grundrisse (1857-61)

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#66

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #60
yinser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> prosperity for whom? The answer for the past 50 years has certainly not been “everyone” or even “most people” in wealthy countries like America.

The poorest state in America, Mississippi, is richer than most of the world [1][2]. (No. 19, between the U.K. and New Zealand.) The post-war era experienced the largest and most broad-based increase in material prosperity in human history. Our poorest Americans saw real economic gains rivaling multi-generational ones for Rome's richest. If there is something that will kill us, it's ahistorical nihilism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#67

Post by chucksmash »

hackyhacky wrote: post #28
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.

You're technically correct, but missing the point: When technology destroys menial jobs, it's progress . When technology destroys white-color jobs, it's a threat .

When technology destroys work people don't like to do, it's progress.

When technology destroys work people like to do, it's _______.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#68

Post by Riverheart »

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.

Except that’s not what’s happening right now. That’s just a list of flowery “might happen” ideas people can use to justify the disruption of society so some people can pad their bank accounts. If they cared they wouldn’t be focusing their attention on art/music.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#69

Post by raincole »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50
Taywee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many jobs lost and how many created? On this track, we continue to toil in the dirt, unless we figured out how to automate all the farming too. In fact, it looks like we're automatic all the fulfilling jobs and only leaving toil for the humans.

> we continue to toil in the dirt, unless we figured out how to automate all the farming Who, on this forum, is forced "to toil in the dirt" for subsistence?

It seems like... everyone soon.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#70

Post by yinser »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #60
yinser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not all roads are paved, but everyone who accesses learning content on the internet is a beneficiary. Anyone who accesses youtube to learn a new skill is a beneficiary. The development of the train, a British technology I know, allowed the movement of massive freights for pennies compared to automobile traffic. That cost of transport allows food costs to be as low as they are in places that use trains. Which is everywhere. Technology facilitates the costs we have for subsistence.
Post reply on HN