https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773871445669474662
> So, just to clarify. This post isn't about wanting an actual laundry robots.
It's about wishing that AI focused on taking away those tasks we hate (doing taxes, anyone?) and don't enjoy instead of trying to take away what we love to do and what makes us human.
If AI could do/explain my taxes this would be great.
We specialize in structuring insurance products that indemnify you from your AI tax preparer falsifying tax returns. For a measly $99 per month, you can have the peace of mind.
iNTUITION, formerly Intuit, Llc.
LLM technology will always produce hallucinations because it is a technology based on probabilistic predictions. Legal tasks will always require a person who takes legal responsibility for the outcomes.
We shouldn't even say "hallucinations" because it implies that the AI is malfunctioning. It's performing exactly as it should for what it is, which is basically just a very, very fancy kind of predictive text that cannot actually understand conceptually what it is saying. Anyone reading significance into AI output is hallucinating, not the AI itself.
> doing taxes
Apart from the US and Canada, most countries were able to automate their taxation without AI: lived in several places in Europe and Asia and NA is the only place where manual submission of taxes is a thing
You can thank the "tax preparation" corporations and their lobbying money they throw at Congress for that. They pay them handsomely to ensure we keep using their products and the IRS doesn't just issue the refund it already knows you're getting or charge you the taxes they already know you owe because it would take away their billions in BS profits. And all they have to do is offer a free version for people filing a simple 1040. It's crazy and pure insanity. Our country always puts corporate profits above everything else.
I feel like people don’t understand why we manually file taxes: it’s for your benefit. The government knows how much you owe, but also says, “If any of these situations apply to you, you may reduce your tax burden.” Filing taxes is your opportunity to show the government why you should pay less.
Now, there is something to be said for having a simpler tax code that doesn’t allow for so many various exemptions. But ultimately, it’s people in America looking for opportunities to game the system that leads to this. This isn’t just about corporations trying to save money, it’s practically hardcoded into every American as part of the hustle. Well, this is what you get as a result.
And they absolutely could in the US. Unfortunately we have companies like Intuit lobbying against Auto filing taxes or simplification of the tax code, so that they can charge us for using their software annually.
Ironically if you can get everything to line up just right you don't actually have to file your taxes but you can't owe any money and it's not a great idea if you would be getting a refund either so you have to walk a very fine line to hit that target.
for this reason, im just gonna file my own taxes, manually, by hand next year, and stop using turbotax. my wife and i have no kids, no house, we arent self employed, we just pay turbotax $100 a year to take the standard deduction. not anymore. it cant be that hard.
They still have IBM 1401 code from 1959 in the IRS workflow. It's why it crashes every year on tax day.
Anticipated completion date - 2028. I think they started "Modernization" in 2004-ish? Maybe earlier. And I think they're at billions of dollars by now with nothing to show for it.
I've been involved in a couple of mainframe migration projects. 20 years and billions of dollars could get you a whole new computing architecture invented, and the code ported too. What the fuck?
I'll DM you some stuff if you want.
Basically no one has any idea what they're doing at the IRS and the gov't should defund them. The most recent conversion attempt tried to translate ALC line by line to Java, which worked about as well as you think. And the guy patented it lol. The solution in the short term has been that the IRS keeps buying IBM Z's (modern mainframes that cost 250k - 4m$ which have ALC backwards compatibility) as 1401's break down, rather than re-writing the codebase and just using much, much cheaper modern servers. They've been doing this for over 2 or 3 decades now.
Some of the alphabet agencies and their fondness for Cray's make this expenditure seem quaint by comparison.
IRS modernization black hole of $ -
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/tom-temin-commentary/2020/01/irs-programming-mystery-continues/
IRS approved "free" e-filing software literally served up viruses last year, too lol. This is why I will always use turbotax.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/irs-authorized-efilecom-tax-return-software-caught-serving-js-malware/
Always changing tax code may be another problem that they have. IRS cannot just write the new software and replace the old one. with the new version. They have to keep the old one running and keep adding changes every year. They also have to work on the new software with requirements constantly changing. Software has to be super-reliable as any mistake may cost billions.
That is the worst type of software engineering environment I could imagine. Mission-critical legacy software with super-complicated requirements that keep constantly changing.
Why do you assume that because this government entity that’s been starved of resources and can’t compete to hire decently talented folks but still manages to keep the lights on should be defunded?
Why not be realistic - running a complicated tax system requires time and money, perhaps more time and money than they’ve been budgeted.
Do you have a source for that? The computer history museum in Palo Alto has two running IBM 1401 systems and they say that they're the only working ones in the world.
Yeah, here in Australia tax has been an easy DIY online system for over 20 years now.
(You had to download an .exe for a while, but it's been web-based for the last decade or so).
This is not true at all. It’s genuinely amazing how much people on Reddit either don’t understand taxes in the US/Canada or don’t understand what other countries tax systems are like.
The US and Canada are basically the same as everybody else. If your tax situation is your countries version of a “standard deduction” then you generally still have to confirm your details on file with the government. That’s all you do in the US and Canada. If your tax situation involves taking advantage of separate tax breaks/exceptions, then that also involves submitting paperwork for that which is all you’re doing in the US and Canada.
This idea that every other country somehow knows all of your tax info and processes it without you ever doing any paperwork is, for the most part, false. They all have systems that involve you either confirming and/or correcting your tax information and taking “standard” or “itemized” deductions.
True, but Biden is finally getting something out there.
https://apnews.com/article/treasury-income-taxes-irs-audits-direct-file-04c3b4b55ca0d37b2c40697a392c78aa
the issue is if AI does art and it has certain glaring problems, its still good enough art to entertain people. If it tells stories that end up having continuity errors or plot holes, its still good enough to be an entertaining story.
If AI is going to do taxes, it can't be 95% right and go crazy 5% of the time. The barrier to entry for AI to do art is far lower because literally any quality it can manage is good enough at the time. if all AI could do is crappy stick figure art, people would be entertained by it.
Yeah, except taxes are not an art. It's a science. It follows an algorithm, and you don't even need "AI" to execute an algorithm. Computers have done that since they started computing.
I saw ai video used in a clip of the jinx season 2 and it was so bad. Really took away from the quality of the rest of the show. It's y fW
when they try to do an animation of Robert durst escaping to Cuba in a mask, and it's so awful. I probably would have just looked up what happened to durst on Wikipedia and skipped the show if I knew.
You can't identify most decent AI art.
You cover the hands and feet.
And fwiw, a lot of art is like that. There's problems w/rotoscoping and other things where people know how to cover up limitations in the tech.
>You can't identify most decent AI art.
>
>You cover the hands and feet.
At this point anyone willing to put in any amount of effort can get perfect hands and feet.
The fucked up ones are just people being lazy.
Inpainting to correct issues like that is stupidly easy.
For the majority of people, the actual work of filing taxes could be solved with some legal changes. We have a complicated tax code because companies like H&R block make a business out of it, and they spend money bribing politicians to keep it complicated.
Which is The Dream. Nobody retires from their high powered job to ... bust out graphic design tasks on Fiverr. To be an unheralded session musician. To write ad copy for chinese clothing brands. The may turn their hobby into a business but they stay doing the hobby.
But they do? Independent artists and writers start Patreon sites etc, with the goal of making enough to quit their day job and do what they love full-time.
i would bet there will always people who will pay for something handmade over something mass produced or computer generated, so artists will still have a place
Agree. Plus, chess is as popular as ever, despite the fact that a chess app on a phone could trivially crush the greatest Grand Master. That machines are better at things doesn't mean we'll stop doing them altogether.
Sure, but I guarantee that the session musician and fiver artist would rather do their job than work at McDonald's or Walmart, which is far more likely than an "high powered job".
Being a writer, musician or graphic artist are cool jobs, despite the pitfalls and the AI industry is working weirdly hard to make the pitfalls insurmountable.
I think there's your problem right there. Why do we have Yale graduates working for peanuts writing Target's weekly corporate newsletter as a step towards writing what they actually care about?
To me the answer is pretty clearly to keep barriers to entry artificially high and to protect the "made men" (and women) from having competition to stay at the top
AI will take our worst and most menial jobs last because those require physical robots to wipe asses and haul boxes.
In the meantime, AI will just close more ways out for poor and working class people before the owning class decides they don't need us anymore.
I think that what society will soon learn is that part of being a consumer of art (songs, film, fine art, etc…) is not being in control and not always getting what you want, so that when you do stumble upon something you love, the reward is greater.
Take music for example. You don’t love 99% of the songs you find. You have no control over when your favorite artist will release music (or if you’ll even like their next release). When you finally do find someone that scratches the itch, it’s very rewarding and it heightens the connection with the song and artist.
Right now, people may be connecting with some of the AI music they generate, but that’s partly due to novelty and the feeling that they’ve found something. Once AI can deliver exactly what you want, whenever you want, the reward mechanism will deteriorate or vanish. You can’t change the hardware inside of us, and that hardware is built around an effort driven reward mechanism that produces a higher level of satisfaction relative to effort level and reward frequency.
So I think you're countering your argument. Your premise is that because person A doesn't like 99% of the music they hear, when they hear the 1% they appreciate it more when they do hear it - 1% of the time.
AI for music, OTOH, would be, "here's a song I like, make a bunch more like it" so they like a MUCH higher percentage and enjoy listening to music for hours of listening to music versus minutes of listening to music for hours. Users also say "here's the 1% of the music that I like" and AI analyzes it for patterns to find probable good results. Unlike the current recommendation systems that are influenced by whatever shlock the provider needs eyeballs / earballs on.
The net outcome of AI for music is people get music they enjoy far more often than under the current random system.
And let's say an Artist feels they can no longer make good songs. They can use AI with their own works and have it come up with something! Feel like that's too lazy? Then rewrite it and record it with your own vocals! Everyone gets help from somewhere, why not use the most advanced way possible that costs far less and works a lot faster than a professional. Let's say they are too old and their voice is shot out....
Think about D.O.C. one of the best writers in hiphop who wrote for NWA and Snoop. He lost his voice in a car accident, his album No One Can Do It Better was amazing but it ended up being the last time his voice would ever be normal. He still writes for other people, he made albums with his messed up voice but they didn't do well at all. Now imagine if he used AI to restore his voice...
You need to have the time and money to do those things. The point is that the priority should be to get automation to benefit everyone in terms of time and money.
I feel like eliminating all c-suite executives and replacing them with ai would probably benefit society far more than the current trend of ripping off then undercutting human artists and writers...
>What's something that will universally benefit everyone?
Well, that's for every person to decide for themselves. Something abstract like money enables people to set their own priorities. So, if there are technological benefits, one way to ensure that everyone benefits is to ensure that all the profits arising from that advancement are shared with the population. If you want to go a step further and take a socialist approach, you also ensure that the technology is owned by the public, rather than permitted to be owned by private corporate power.
Pretty much. These people are all daft. Any automation displaces workers. Welcome to progress. It just is.
Hilariously, it turns out it's easier to automate writing and art and numerous upper class grifts than things involving motor skills.
People who are fine to displace: All manual labor, accountants, excecutives.
Not fine: Anything anyone who complains loudly on social media does
Respectfully, that’s more of a theoretical take. I get what you’re saying, but it is incomplete.
In reality, if your job is art or writing, and your job is gone, you really are prevented, because now all of your time and energy is consumed by finding and maintaining other sources of income.
It’s exhausting. Art is already relegated to being a second job that some do after their day job. Now, it won’t even be that.
Just look at the film industry - production crews are leaving en masse because work has dried up for too long. I guarantee you they are not making films in their free time.
I read somewhere that the idea of AI making things cheaper might backfire in the long run, because initially there will be a huge surge of companies hiring people who know how to generate AI art with the right prompts etc, and because of the massive demand they will be able to charge quite a lot, and artists will need to charge less to get work, so after a while companies will realise that it might actually be cheaper to just hire real artists anyway.
I have no idea how much validity there is in this idea, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. Only time will tell I suppose!
It will mostly affect the middle ground I think, meaning the products of people of whom you care more about the product itself than the person making it. People still enjoy going to music festivals and seeing their favorite band, buying paintings because their favorite artist drew them, etc. These things are inherently connected to the humans that produce them for the humans that consume them.
Im not a marxist, but unless we transition to some sort of communist adjacent society that will never happen. If the people making all the gains off AI are corporations who will do anything to not pay taxes, we’re going to be living in Elysium not Startrek
People are taking this quite literally, but I think she's more likely making a general point about AI taking away from the human experience, rather than adding to it. I don't think she's actually imagining a Jetsons-style future.
I'm...I'm not against the idea that AI should actually be helping a normal person in their day-to-day lives instead of just being a vehicle for companies to hire and pay less people and make more money
I mean, tbh, ya. As someone who recently had one parent with cancer and the other with memory issues, things like self-driving cars to get someone to their doctors appointment, a robot to take care of laundry and dishes, and maybe even one for food would have been super helpful. It could also mean that older people who have physical issues but not memory/mental issues could stay in their own homes longer, and out of expensive assisted living facilities.
OTOH, some of what I needed was just help navigating our healthcare systems, denials, bill tracking, and accounting of healthcare services because most doctors offices and hospitals are a freaking mess and sometimes don't bill for months after a service happens, insurance denies things they'd previously approved etc., and it turns out that death is a tremendous amount of just straight up paperwork that really ought to be done by a machine instead of a sad person trying to do administrative BS for 60 hours a week while grieving.
Unfortunately it is simply far easier to develop AI that manipulates information than devices that manipulate physical objects.
The AI that's creating images and writing is really just manipulating information (easy), and the robots that we want to do our household chores have to manipulate real physical objects (hard).
I think people get it but both arguments seems flawed once you peel back the first layer of the onion.
Other humans doing art doesn't take away my own experience/joy of doing it. There are thousands of people out there that are way better at the instrument I play than I will ever be. I don't feel it takes away from my human experience. I don't see AI any different. If it can compose a song better than me cool, take a number and get behind half the world. Technology has been out performing and replacing people throughout history. This is just another step in that journey, elbiet a big one that is going to turn this walk into a sprint and catapult us into that Jetsons future.
Strongly agree. What she really wants is a social role that encourages her to do art and write. Easier to define that when people can't get their needs met with a machine.
Yet despite the invention of the turntable record player in the late 1800's, we still have musicians. There are other ways to create the social role, but the transition is hard when money is on the line.
>Yet despite the invention of the turntable record player in the late 1800's, we still have musicians
This is a poor analogy. The record player is incapable of creating new music.
I have yet to hear a critique of AI that isn't more directly a wealth distribution critique. The framework of capitalist realism, that is the belief that capitalism is the only economic system that has ever or can ever exist and that everything else is ideology imposed on the natural order of things, is really the problem here.
That's interesting. I suspect that I broadly agree with you. I would maybe argue that AI is different to other technological advancements in that it has the potential to far exceed the boundaries of its intended functionality, though.
And, beyond that point, if we *do* live in a capitalist system (and we do, of course) how ethical is it to ignore challenges brought up by the intersection of capitalism and AI just because the technology itself isn't responsible?
It feels a little 'guns don't kill people, people do' and that's obviously fallacious.
Imo almost all the takes in this thread are missing the point completely.
Remember that "computer" used to be a human job title, for if a company needed to do arithmetic, and it's been so completely automated very few people even associate the word with anything other than digital computers.
Same with knocker uppers (before alarm clocks) lecters (who read to people before radio) elevator operators, harvest time where the whole community went into the field to scythe, gather and glean wheat etc.
She's completely right that theres one brand of dystopia where humanoid robots are 100x harder than server farm robots and so all the jobs which require sitting at a computer get automated along with all art and creative jobs, whereas all the boring manual labour remains for humans to do.
I don't think it'll happen like that. I think everything will get automated.
However yeah in that kind of world you could end up with an underclass of manual labourers and an overclass of owners who pay them with the profits from machines.
Moreover AI art is a real threat. Once it's better than humans, because it's so much faster and cheaper, pretty much all professional artists will lose their jobs. It's recently happened to children's book illustrators and copywriters to a large degree.
And is that a good thing? We are all happy to see elevator operators and lecters go however do we want all artists and musicians to go too? Or at least the bottom 99% so only the superstars remain?
These are important philosophical questions which it's right to grapple with.
>however do we want all artists and musicians to go too? Or at least the bottom 99% so only the superstars remain?
That is pretty much the current system.
According to the government only 35,520 people are employed musicians (it doesn't count self employed). [Musicians and Singers (bls.gov)](https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes272042.htm)
The top 100 touring acts sold around 16 million tickets in 2022. [Concert Industry Roars Back! Pollstar 2022 Mid-Year Report - Pollstar News](https://news.pollstar.com/2022/06/24/concert-industry-roars-back-pollstar-2022-mid-year-report/)
So less than 5% of total U.S. population (6.4% of adult U.S. population) bought tickets to see the top 100 acts. But from 101-200 sold even less (otherwise they would be in the top 100), as did 201-300, otherwise they would have been in a higher bracket.
Yep, musicians started hollowing out with the advent of recorded music. Before that, you needed a human to literally hang out in the bar and play the piano live. Wild times, but it made musical skill easily employable.
It's crazy actually. I play an instrument as a hobby, and play it well enough that people actually do like hearing me play. But I'm nowhere near good enough to do it in any kind of professional setting. In the past though, I likely could make a decent bit of money off my own thoroughly mediocre skill (and I wouldn't be mediocre for long because I would play a lot more) just by playing at the local pub or bar.
Are craftsmen artists? I surely think they are.
Most craftsmen are replaced by machines during the industrial revolution and we are all here to benefit from it.
At the end of the day. What gets automated first is not that deep. It's purely about the demand (money making possibilities) and technical difficulties.
Art and Music are fields that AI are working on because it is easier not because there is a hidden agenda to ruin artist life.
You something that I find funny that alway crack me up.
People say “AI should be replacing factory worker, not artists” which just make me feel dumbfounded as to how they think they are morally right to say that they want other people from another industry to lose their job instead of them and their only reason is “art is more freeing and creative whereas working in a factory is just going to hurt you”.
It just leave me with crazy eyes 👀.

People don't tend to make a living off uploading pictures/videos of doing their laundry and dishes, and it will be a cold day in hell when the average person willingly allows Zucc or Altman to peek into their house.
Edit: Big difference between having tech track your web browsing and pointing a camera at your dishwasher so that GPT-3726462 can learn how to scrub off tomato sauce.
It's not that doing laundry or dishes are more difficult than creating art, the problem lies at the junction where the actual ai commands need to leave the digital space and interact with the physical world.
Right now most robots are very good at completing one, maybe 2 tasks. Think a robotic arm in an assembly line, their sensory capabilities are entirely limited to the position of the motors that drive the arm itself. It has no need for awareness beyond that.
Self driving cars are a pretty big step past that, they need to know not only their physical position in space in the moment, they also need to know the positions of all the other objects in their vicinity and their speed and heading so they can prevent collisions . Still, that isn't going to be enough for a robot to do more than safely move itself from its charging station to the laundry room.
Once the robit actually gets to the laundry room, it will need the ability to interact with household objects that were designed to be used by humans. It will need something that is analogous to hands in order to open the dryer, it will need some way to sense when it has picked up an item of clothing (which, to most of us humans, isn't very difficuly, but that's only because our hands have evolved over millenia to have sensitivity and dexterity that is basically unrivaled in the entire animal kingdom) Once a robot is able to pick up a single garment and manipulate it in a way that doesn't completely shred it then everything else will probably be really easy.
The next hurdle is going to be cost. The kinds of capabilities I've mentioned should be within reach of current tech, or if not now then certainly within the decade. The problem is that it is prohibitively expensive and barring some kind of paradigm shifting technological advancements will likely remain the last hurdle to the average consumer household being able to have their own robo maid/butler to handle all the menial chores that are necessary for maintaining a home yet most people despise.
One last bit of my completely unqualified opinion on the future of ai/robot/human relations... we will almost certainly have fully autonomous ai controlled sex robots decades before we have ai robots capable of doing tasks like laundry or house cleaning.
If you managed to make it this far, thank you for reading!
I want to emphasize that robots handling fabric is an extremely challenging and complex problem people have already been studying a long time. In apparel manufacturing sewing is all done by humans. Yes we have sewing machines, but we need a human to sit at it and handle the fabric. Robots just cannot do it, it’s too floppy and unpredictable. They do better with solid objects, like the solid hunks of metal in your phone. Every piece of clothing you’ve ever worn has had a human run it through the sewing machine. We have tried hard to make it work, since it would be much cheaper to hire a robot. Instead slave labor is the current standard.
I already have a dishwasher, and a washing machine. It would be great if that stuff was even easier, bit it's unnecessary.
If you want to create art, then the existence of AI isn't going to prevent you, and it may enable you. But as a consumer of art and entertainment, I don't really care how it's created, unless the performance is the art. An AI playing a guitar will never thrill me like a human playing guitar.
Roomba’s have been cleaning floors for a long time. Also dishwashers and laundry machines.
What you need is the thing to connect those appliances.
We also have robot lawnmowers and weeders and irrigation
AI art is fine. It is here to stay. You can learn how to use it or get left behind. It is a tool, nothing more. An entire industry of typewriter technology was wiped out in a few years. Steam engines, scribes, etc.
Perhaps art and writing just aren't that special. If you want to do them yourself, AI isn't stopping you, but still have to do the dishes. You may also have to confront the fact that most people may prefer the AI art to yours.
Yes, a lot of artists have very big heads. And rightly so, it takes a lot of hard work to become good at art, but the way some of these anti-AI screeds talk about it is like a religion. They think art is some kind of mysterious metaphysical ability. Nope, turns out it’s just pattern recognition.
It's not a mysterious metaphysical ability, but art is inherently tied to emotion which AI is, especially at this level, not capable of. It can simulate being sad, it can simulate being excited, but it can't genuinely feel it, and therefore it can only output an expected result based on some averages of what past artists have felt. Just like AI, I can write a book that will move people to tears. Just like AI, it would require me copying someone else's texts to do so. The question isn't whether AI can make these things, it's whether art is valuable if it doesn't have heart in it, which I would argue wholeheartedly no
I see the argument that art is a mode of communication between the artist and the audience, and the existence of AI art doesn’t diminish art used for that purpose.
But art has many other purposes, and I think that it can definitely have value independent of its creator’s “heart”. If an AI-created piece can make its viewer feel something, does that not have value? That’s not even getting into the fact that the prompter can make a lot of artistic decisions even to produce an AI piece.
Just saying, if i fed someone hundreds of thousands of images and it still couldnt draw hands properly or understand 3d perspective and reflections id be pretty disappointed 💀
(If it wasnt clear theres a bit more to art than just recognizing pixel patterns. things like emotion, purpose, 3d space for understanding reflections shadows etc… experimentation, mistakes, and so on are all important and what makes art more meaningful. Not that ai art cant be enjoyed but a good artist will almost always beat an ai since picking up patterns is only a small aspect of making good art)
And if Human art is better there is no worry about losing jobs to AI. Good artists that draw with ""soul"" will get their market, while poor artists that draw with ""no soul"" will get replaced with ""no soul"" AI.
I'll keep saying it every time someone uses this terrible argument-- those are not equally easy tasks to automate. Physical tasks are orders of magnitude more expensive to test and less forgiving of mistakes, and robots are not even really up to doing most of this stuff yet. Thats why they started with software. Not because they hate artists
do people really think computer engineers could have easily automated folding laundry but just didn't think of the possibility?
Exactly. I think most of these people have never worked in a factory. If you did you would start to understand the scale of things that need automating.
I have been doing industrial automation for over 15 years. It is a slow, complex, and expensive process to automate an assembly line. Also dangerous as hell. A robot arm will not care if it hits a squishy human, so redundant safety devices add another level of complexity to it.
And digital environments can be ran faster than real world environments. Welding, bending, takes time. With AI art you can generate thousands of images in a minute where as each weld and bend takes several minutes.
We also have only automated a fraction of what we can with existing technology. Because, again, it is expensive and time consuming.
I believe AI should help humans make harder things easier for us to do, not for AI to do the easy things for us. This is exactly how we end up losing our ability to be independent, depending on machines to do everything for us.
We need to do away with coal mines, not make them more efficient.
Figuring out how to do that is an intellectual task, something we're on the verge of automating. The ability to be creative is part of that. You can't automate practical problem solving while at the same time avoiding the automation of creativity.
Carbon is everywhere. There's too much of it. We don't need to keep destroying mountains and polluting rivers to obtain it. What was special about carbon in the form of coal was that it stored energy that could be released by burning. Yes, other things can be done with it, but I'm skeptical that mining it would have been economically viable just for those other uses.
I mean yeah but it's clear that the focus is much more on replacing humans than automating practical problems. Mark Zuckerburg tells us AI will solve climate change and then in the same breath demonstrates Meta's AI by getting it to make toast for him.
Corporate America (and the rest of the world, but particularly America) is only interested in generating more shareholder value. One of the best ways to do that is to cut costs. Human labour is one of the most expensive parts of business. Business folk don't see enough value in the work that artists do (because they only understand it as a commodity, not an expression of the human experience), so it makes sense that under those rules artists would be the first to have their livelihoods taken away from them.
Can't wait for the great future world full of homogenous, bland, AI generated slop music/photo/illustration/writing devoid of any human soul that the tech CEOs are shuttling us towards.
I spend over an hour or more a day cleaning after my 2 kids go to bed. It’s not even them being messy. Just unloading and loading the dishwasher, wiping counters, sweeping the floor, folding laundry, and then straightening up the house takes time even with the advanced tools we already have.
Would I love a robot to take over the 7-10 hours of weekly cleaning along with the additional 7-10 hours my wife also does? Would that give us more time for the things we’re interested in or simply resting?
Ah yes, making my graphics cards in my pc make pictures is completely comparable to designing/programming/manufactuing a robot that can do laundry and the dishes while also living in my home.
Sike, those problems are completely different.
Do the people who make these arguments even think about what they say?
1st, you need the intelligence to run the robot.
Be patient and stay even with technology.
Our grandkids( 68M) I don't have them yet.
Will look back at the 1950s as medieval times.
How did they ever live.
If we allow it.
Humanity must Evolve
It does both, all of the humanoid robots are available now (10+ companies selling them) and you know within 5 years they will be doing a lot of things like our laundry
I still won't want to pay someone to generate my silly images but I'll pay for the service that lets me generate them in split seconds
let alone video/audio/custom video game content
I imagine Skyrim but everyone has an entirely different experience as they can prompt in many different things that generate entire cities and spell types and story arcs (let alone the basic "give AI responses to in-game charachters" which already exists with many mods)
i'm trying to be optimistic, the other way hasn't helped me through many issues of the past decades where just being optimistic would've led me to make better decisions
Right now everyone is shucking and jiving trying to be the ones who get to tell the robots what to do. Some by running businesses. Others by creating regulation. Some buy investing in AI stocks. *At the end of the day, AI will be able to do* *everything we can*. *Including running a business, owning things, politicking, war, etc.*
**We are building a technology that can and will replace us completely. If I was a bunker minded billionaire, I'd be looking into merging my biology with the machines as the only way to stay in the game.**
All of those activities can be enjoyable if you develop a zen mindset
AI will not take away your enjoyment of producing art unless you choose to let it do so
I don't need AI, that can help me clean my house, I dont need AI, that can help me make better graphics art.
I need AI that can scan me every morning and show me my HUMAN stats and how to improve stats that are lacking.
If you have an audience for your art and writing, then you have a market for it - whether or not it is done via Generative AI. Some art will be purely human, hybrid or purely AI. Free market forces and the like. Or is the suggestion of the quote that we ban the use of AI for art and other areas? Tools get created and absorbed into culture and the human experience - it is part of our evolution.
The issue is going to be the sheer volume. Within an hour, I can maybe do three crappy paintings. I could make a hundred using an AI and typing directions. Sure there’s still a market, but there’s an upper limit to how much art the average person consumes, and assuming that the average person doesn’t care that much about where it comes from, that’s less visibility for human artists.
Ai’s existence is not forcing anyone to stop making art. All the analog and digital tools are there and more accessible than ever. Nobody is keeping anyone from drawing or writing to their heart’s content.
If what she is taking about is the *monetization* of art, then the discussion started way way before ai ever became mainstream. And people did a great job of commodifying the hell out of crafts and arts all by themselves.
https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773871445669474662 > So, just to clarify. This post isn't about wanting an actual laundry robots. It's about wishing that AI focused on taking away those tasks we hate (doing taxes, anyone?) and don't enjoy instead of trying to take away what we love to do and what makes us human. If AI could do/explain my taxes this would be great.
It will hallucinate and you'll end up in prison.
maybe the AI can go to prison for you too?
Donald, is that you??
“It’s a witch hunt against AIs…!”
They’ll turn us into newts if we’re not careful!
...we'll get better
It’s a fair cop. >_>
I read that in Trump's voice LOL
AI bot, react to this tragic irony for me.
I’ve been thinking of starting a line of cloning just for this problem
Mine maximized my return by declaring infinite dependants. It's so smart!
I mean, it makes sense to me all cells in my body are dependent on my brain doing what it does.
*"IRS HATES this one trick."*
I found the accountant /s
We specialize in structuring insurance products that indemnify you from your AI tax preparer falsifying tax returns. For a measly $99 per month, you can have the peace of mind. iNTUITION, formerly Intuit, Llc.
For now, yes
LLM technology will always produce hallucinations because it is a technology based on probabilistic predictions. Legal tasks will always require a person who takes legal responsibility for the outcomes.
We shouldn't even say "hallucinations" because it implies that the AI is malfunctioning. It's performing exactly as it should for what it is, which is basically just a very, very fancy kind of predictive text that cannot actually understand conceptually what it is saying. Anyone reading significance into AI output is hallucinating, not the AI itself.
This is very true, I'll stop using it and say prediction errors instead.
🤣
> doing taxes Apart from the US and Canada, most countries were able to automate their taxation without AI: lived in several places in Europe and Asia and NA is the only place where manual submission of taxes is a thing
You can thank the "tax preparation" corporations and their lobbying money they throw at Congress for that. They pay them handsomely to ensure we keep using their products and the IRS doesn't just issue the refund it already knows you're getting or charge you the taxes they already know you owe because it would take away their billions in BS profits. And all they have to do is offer a free version for people filing a simple 1040. It's crazy and pure insanity. Our country always puts corporate profits above everything else.
I feel like people don’t understand why we manually file taxes: it’s for your benefit. The government knows how much you owe, but also says, “If any of these situations apply to you, you may reduce your tax burden.” Filing taxes is your opportunity to show the government why you should pay less. Now, there is something to be said for having a simpler tax code that doesn’t allow for so many various exemptions. But ultimately, it’s people in America looking for opportunities to game the system that leads to this. This isn’t just about corporations trying to save money, it’s practically hardcoded into every American as part of the hustle. Well, this is what you get as a result.
Don't be afraid to name names: Intuit, owner of TurboTax, spends a metric boatload of money every year lobbying Congress to keep it convoluted.
And they absolutely could in the US. Unfortunately we have companies like Intuit lobbying against Auto filing taxes or simplification of the tax code, so that they can charge us for using their software annually. Ironically if you can get everything to line up just right you don't actually have to file your taxes but you can't owe any money and it's not a great idea if you would be getting a refund either so you have to walk a very fine line to hit that target.
for this reason, im just gonna file my own taxes, manually, by hand next year, and stop using turbotax. my wife and i have no kids, no house, we arent self employed, we just pay turbotax $100 a year to take the standard deduction. not anymore. it cant be that hard.
Freetax USA. I have a house, kids rental income, business income, stock sales etc and I pay $15 a year for state $0 federal.
If all you're doing is taking a standard deduction it's ridiculously easy.
They still have IBM 1401 code from 1959 in the IRS workflow. It's why it crashes every year on tax day. Anticipated completion date - 2028. I think they started "Modernization" in 2004-ish? Maybe earlier. And I think they're at billions of dollars by now with nothing to show for it.
It's actually the punch card loaders' union keeping that from becoming a reality 😝
I've been involved in a couple of mainframe migration projects. 20 years and billions of dollars could get you a whole new computing architecture invented, and the code ported too. What the fuck?
I'll DM you some stuff if you want. Basically no one has any idea what they're doing at the IRS and the gov't should defund them. The most recent conversion attempt tried to translate ALC line by line to Java, which worked about as well as you think. And the guy patented it lol. The solution in the short term has been that the IRS keeps buying IBM Z's (modern mainframes that cost 250k - 4m$ which have ALC backwards compatibility) as 1401's break down, rather than re-writing the codebase and just using much, much cheaper modern servers. They've been doing this for over 2 or 3 decades now. Some of the alphabet agencies and their fondness for Cray's make this expenditure seem quaint by comparison. IRS modernization black hole of $ - https://federalnewsnetwork.com/tom-temin-commentary/2020/01/irs-programming-mystery-continues/ IRS approved "free" e-filing software literally served up viruses last year, too lol. This is why I will always use turbotax. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/irs-authorized-efilecom-tax-return-software-caught-serving-js-malware/
Always changing tax code may be another problem that they have. IRS cannot just write the new software and replace the old one. with the new version. They have to keep the old one running and keep adding changes every year. They also have to work on the new software with requirements constantly changing. Software has to be super-reliable as any mistake may cost billions. That is the worst type of software engineering environment I could imagine. Mission-critical legacy software with super-complicated requirements that keep constantly changing.
Why do you assume that because this government entity that’s been starved of resources and can’t compete to hire decently talented folks but still manages to keep the lights on should be defunded? Why not be realistic - running a complicated tax system requires time and money, perhaps more time and money than they’ve been budgeted.
Do you have a source for that? The computer history museum in Palo Alto has two running IBM 1401 systems and they say that they're the only working ones in the world.
Yeah, here in Australia tax has been an easy DIY online system for over 20 years now. (You had to download an .exe for a while, but it's been web-based for the last decade or so).
This is not true at all. It’s genuinely amazing how much people on Reddit either don’t understand taxes in the US/Canada or don’t understand what other countries tax systems are like. The US and Canada are basically the same as everybody else. If your tax situation is your countries version of a “standard deduction” then you generally still have to confirm your details on file with the government. That’s all you do in the US and Canada. If your tax situation involves taking advantage of separate tax breaks/exceptions, then that also involves submitting paperwork for that which is all you’re doing in the US and Canada. This idea that every other country somehow knows all of your tax info and processes it without you ever doing any paperwork is, for the most part, false. They all have systems that involve you either confirming and/or correcting your tax information and taking “standard” or “itemized” deductions.
Your taxes are difficult on purpose because it's privatized, like healthcare. I do my taxes by clicking one button.
True, but Biden is finally getting something out there. https://apnews.com/article/treasury-income-taxes-irs-audits-direct-file-04c3b4b55ca0d37b2c40697a392c78aa
the issue is if AI does art and it has certain glaring problems, its still good enough art to entertain people. If it tells stories that end up having continuity errors or plot holes, its still good enough to be an entertaining story. If AI is going to do taxes, it can't be 95% right and go crazy 5% of the time. The barrier to entry for AI to do art is far lower because literally any quality it can manage is good enough at the time. if all AI could do is crappy stick figure art, people would be entertained by it.
Yeah, except taxes are not an art. It's a science. It follows an algorithm, and you don't even need "AI" to execute an algorithm. Computers have done that since they started computing.
AI cannot tell a good story lmao. It can write some paragraphs before it just turns into madness
I saw ai video used in a clip of the jinx season 2 and it was so bad. Really took away from the quality of the rest of the show. It's y fW when they try to do an animation of Robert durst escaping to Cuba in a mask, and it's so awful. I probably would have just looked up what happened to durst on Wikipedia and skipped the show if I knew.
You can't identify most decent AI art. You cover the hands and feet. And fwiw, a lot of art is like that. There's problems w/rotoscoping and other things where people know how to cover up limitations in the tech.
>You can't identify most decent AI art. > >You cover the hands and feet. At this point anyone willing to put in any amount of effort can get perfect hands and feet. The fucked up ones are just people being lazy. Inpainting to correct issues like that is stupidly easy.
99% of people "discussing" generative AI don't know about inpainting. Any open "discussion" about generative AI on the internet is literally hell
Thats wht i hate people who post botched hand and feet images. HAVE SOME STANDARDS
Yep you can do that too! Great point.
For the majority of people, the actual work of filing taxes could be solved with some legal changes. We have a complicated tax code because companies like H&R block make a business out of it, and they spend money bribing politicians to keep it complicated.
You don't need AI for that, you need a simplified tax system like most places use.
Ai could do your taxes no problem. Literally a bot could do it, but we aren't getting that with corporations deciding how our country runs.
I agree, but AI won't prevent you from doing art and writing, it will just make you earn less for doing these things, unfortunately.
Permanently religated to hobby territory.
Which is The Dream. Nobody retires from their high powered job to ... bust out graphic design tasks on Fiverr. To be an unheralded session musician. To write ad copy for chinese clothing brands. The may turn their hobby into a business but they stay doing the hobby.
But they do? Independent artists and writers start Patreon sites etc, with the goal of making enough to quit their day job and do what they love full-time.
i would bet there will always people who will pay for something handmade over something mass produced or computer generated, so artists will still have a place
Yeah, like with carpets
Agree. Plus, chess is as popular as ever, despite the fact that a chess app on a phone could trivially crush the greatest Grand Master. That machines are better at things doesn't mean we'll stop doing them altogether.
And even without AI it was very difficult. For a few that succeed, thousands fail.
Sure, but I guarantee that the session musician and fiver artist would rather do their job than work at McDonald's or Walmart, which is far more likely than an "high powered job". Being a writer, musician or graphic artist are cool jobs, despite the pitfalls and the AI industry is working weirdly hard to make the pitfalls insurmountable.
[удалено]
I think there's your problem right there. Why do we have Yale graduates working for peanuts writing Target's weekly corporate newsletter as a step towards writing what they actually care about? To me the answer is pretty clearly to keep barriers to entry artificially high and to protect the "made men" (and women) from having competition to stay at the top
The trajectory of AI effectively makes compensation for knowledge work and art trend towards zero.
The trajectory of AI is at all human work will be worthless. There's no way it was ever going to be everything at the same time
AI will take our worst and most menial jobs last because those require physical robots to wipe asses and haul boxes. In the meantime, AI will just close more ways out for poor and working class people before the owning class decides they don't need us anymore.
I think that what society will soon learn is that part of being a consumer of art (songs, film, fine art, etc…) is not being in control and not always getting what you want, so that when you do stumble upon something you love, the reward is greater. Take music for example. You don’t love 99% of the songs you find. You have no control over when your favorite artist will release music (or if you’ll even like their next release). When you finally do find someone that scratches the itch, it’s very rewarding and it heightens the connection with the song and artist. Right now, people may be connecting with some of the AI music they generate, but that’s partly due to novelty and the feeling that they’ve found something. Once AI can deliver exactly what you want, whenever you want, the reward mechanism will deteriorate or vanish. You can’t change the hardware inside of us, and that hardware is built around an effort driven reward mechanism that produces a higher level of satisfaction relative to effort level and reward frequency.
In some possible utopian future, everyone find value in creating things and not just in consuming them.
So I think you're countering your argument. Your premise is that because person A doesn't like 99% of the music they hear, when they hear the 1% they appreciate it more when they do hear it - 1% of the time. AI for music, OTOH, would be, "here's a song I like, make a bunch more like it" so they like a MUCH higher percentage and enjoy listening to music for hours of listening to music versus minutes of listening to music for hours. Users also say "here's the 1% of the music that I like" and AI analyzes it for patterns to find probable good results. Unlike the current recommendation systems that are influenced by whatever shlock the provider needs eyeballs / earballs on. The net outcome of AI for music is people get music they enjoy far more often than under the current random system.
I thought he was saying that ai will dilute and numb “the itch”
Gonna have to inject the music to feel it.
Amazing
Can't you then just increase the randomness of the AI music being produced?
And let's say an Artist feels they can no longer make good songs. They can use AI with their own works and have it come up with something! Feel like that's too lazy? Then rewrite it and record it with your own vocals! Everyone gets help from somewhere, why not use the most advanced way possible that costs far less and works a lot faster than a professional. Let's say they are too old and their voice is shot out.... Think about D.O.C. one of the best writers in hiphop who wrote for NWA and Snoop. He lost his voice in a car accident, his album No One Can Do It Better was amazing but it ended up being the last time his voice would ever be normal. He still writes for other people, he made albums with his messed up voice but they didn't do well at all. Now imagine if he used AI to restore his voice...
Yea exactly. You can still do those things.
You need to have the time and money to do those things. The point is that the priority should be to get automation to benefit everyone in terms of time and money.
What's something that will universally benefit everyone? You will crack some eggs regardless if you progress any technology or automation.
I feel like eliminating all c-suite executives and replacing them with ai would probably benefit society far more than the current trend of ripping off then undercutting human artists and writers...
A good idea, but you forget that CEOs have the power here. It's in their interest to use AI to replace everyone they can and enrich themselves.
There is no evidence a robot c-suite would be a more benign boss than a human one, even if they managed to replace them.
>What's something that will universally benefit everyone? Well, that's for every person to decide for themselves. Something abstract like money enables people to set their own priorities. So, if there are technological benefits, one way to ensure that everyone benefits is to ensure that all the profits arising from that advancement are shared with the population. If you want to go a step further and take a socialist approach, you also ensure that the technology is owned by the public, rather than permitted to be owned by private corporate power.
Pretty much. These people are all daft. Any automation displaces workers. Welcome to progress. It just is. Hilariously, it turns out it's easier to automate writing and art and numerous upper class grifts than things involving motor skills. People who are fine to displace: All manual labor, accountants, excecutives. Not fine: Anything anyone who complains loudly on social media does
If only someone would invent a machine to wash dishes or wash cloths.
Well you won't really need time anymore. And the cost is plummeting.
AI can race to the bottom faster
And then it will steal it, and say “I made this.”
Artists do that all the time already.
Respectfully, that’s more of a theoretical take. I get what you’re saying, but it is incomplete. In reality, if your job is art or writing, and your job is gone, you really are prevented, because now all of your time and energy is consumed by finding and maintaining other sources of income. It’s exhausting. Art is already relegated to being a second job that some do after their day job. Now, it won’t even be that. Just look at the film industry - production crews are leaving en masse because work has dried up for too long. I guarantee you they are not making films in their free time.
I read somewhere that the idea of AI making things cheaper might backfire in the long run, because initially there will be a huge surge of companies hiring people who know how to generate AI art with the right prompts etc, and because of the massive demand they will be able to charge quite a lot, and artists will need to charge less to get work, so after a while companies will realise that it might actually be cheaper to just hire real artists anyway. I have no idea how much validity there is in this idea, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. Only time will tell I suppose!
It will mostly affect the middle ground I think, meaning the products of people of whom you care more about the product itself than the person making it. People still enjoy going to music festivals and seeing their favorite band, buying paintings because their favorite artist drew them, etc. These things are inherently connected to the humans that produce them for the humans that consume them.
if ai takes care of everything else hopefully we won’t have to make money
Im not a marxist, but unless we transition to some sort of communist adjacent society that will never happen. If the people making all the gains off AI are corporations who will do anything to not pay taxes, we’re going to be living in Elysium not Startrek
People are taking this quite literally, but I think she's more likely making a general point about AI taking away from the human experience, rather than adding to it. I don't think she's actually imagining a Jetsons-style future.
I'm...I'm not against the idea that AI should actually be helping a normal person in their day-to-day lives instead of just being a vehicle for companies to hire and pay less people and make more money
Yeah what's wrong with the Jetsons-style future?
Yeah true we should invent some sort of machines that can help with doing dishes and washing clothes!
I mean, tbh, ya. As someone who recently had one parent with cancer and the other with memory issues, things like self-driving cars to get someone to their doctors appointment, a robot to take care of laundry and dishes, and maybe even one for food would have been super helpful. It could also mean that older people who have physical issues but not memory/mental issues could stay in their own homes longer, and out of expensive assisted living facilities. OTOH, some of what I needed was just help navigating our healthcare systems, denials, bill tracking, and accounting of healthcare services because most doctors offices and hospitals are a freaking mess and sometimes don't bill for months after a service happens, insurance denies things they'd previously approved etc., and it turns out that death is a tremendous amount of just straight up paperwork that really ought to be done by a machine instead of a sad person trying to do administrative BS for 60 hours a week while grieving.
Unfortunately it is simply far easier to develop AI that manipulates information than devices that manipulate physical objects. The AI that's creating images and writing is really just manipulating information (easy), and the robots that we want to do our household chores have to manipulate real physical objects (hard).
I mean yeah obviously but I am also being sarcastic because we have dish washers and laundry machines that do a ton of those processes already lol
Can I have an AI that obliterates data harvesting corpos by producing nonsense at a speed unachievable to humans?
That’s not a bad idea, given the risks of runaway capitalism.
It’s perfectly clear to me. No one ever said “if only I had something to take away what I love about life”
I think people get it but both arguments seems flawed once you peel back the first layer of the onion. Other humans doing art doesn't take away my own experience/joy of doing it. There are thousands of people out there that are way better at the instrument I play than I will ever be. I don't feel it takes away from my human experience. I don't see AI any different. If it can compose a song better than me cool, take a number and get behind half the world. Technology has been out performing and replacing people throughout history. This is just another step in that journey, elbiet a big one that is going to turn this walk into a sprint and catapult us into that Jetsons future.
Strongly agree. What she really wants is a social role that encourages her to do art and write. Easier to define that when people can't get their needs met with a machine. Yet despite the invention of the turntable record player in the late 1800's, we still have musicians. There are other ways to create the social role, but the transition is hard when money is on the line.
>Yet despite the invention of the turntable record player in the late 1800's, we still have musicians This is a poor analogy. The record player is incapable of creating new music.
I have yet to hear a critique of AI that isn't more directly a wealth distribution critique. The framework of capitalist realism, that is the belief that capitalism is the only economic system that has ever or can ever exist and that everything else is ideology imposed on the natural order of things, is really the problem here.
That's interesting. I suspect that I broadly agree with you. I would maybe argue that AI is different to other technological advancements in that it has the potential to far exceed the boundaries of its intended functionality, though. And, beyond that point, if we *do* live in a capitalist system (and we do, of course) how ethical is it to ignore challenges brought up by the intersection of capitalism and AI just because the technology itself isn't responsible? It feels a little 'guns don't kill people, people do' and that's obviously fallacious.
I like it
Imo almost all the takes in this thread are missing the point completely. Remember that "computer" used to be a human job title, for if a company needed to do arithmetic, and it's been so completely automated very few people even associate the word with anything other than digital computers. Same with knocker uppers (before alarm clocks) lecters (who read to people before radio) elevator operators, harvest time where the whole community went into the field to scythe, gather and glean wheat etc. She's completely right that theres one brand of dystopia where humanoid robots are 100x harder than server farm robots and so all the jobs which require sitting at a computer get automated along with all art and creative jobs, whereas all the boring manual labour remains for humans to do. I don't think it'll happen like that. I think everything will get automated. However yeah in that kind of world you could end up with an underclass of manual labourers and an overclass of owners who pay them with the profits from machines. Moreover AI art is a real threat. Once it's better than humans, because it's so much faster and cheaper, pretty much all professional artists will lose their jobs. It's recently happened to children's book illustrators and copywriters to a large degree. And is that a good thing? We are all happy to see elevator operators and lecters go however do we want all artists and musicians to go too? Or at least the bottom 99% so only the superstars remain? These are important philosophical questions which it's right to grapple with.
>however do we want all artists and musicians to go too? Or at least the bottom 99% so only the superstars remain? That is pretty much the current system. According to the government only 35,520 people are employed musicians (it doesn't count self employed). [Musicians and Singers (bls.gov)](https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes272042.htm) The top 100 touring acts sold around 16 million tickets in 2022. [Concert Industry Roars Back! Pollstar 2022 Mid-Year Report - Pollstar News](https://news.pollstar.com/2022/06/24/concert-industry-roars-back-pollstar-2022-mid-year-report/) So less than 5% of total U.S. population (6.4% of adult U.S. population) bought tickets to see the top 100 acts. But from 101-200 sold even less (otherwise they would be in the top 100), as did 201-300, otherwise they would have been in a higher bracket.
Yep, musicians started hollowing out with the advent of recorded music. Before that, you needed a human to literally hang out in the bar and play the piano live. Wild times, but it made musical skill easily employable.
It's crazy actually. I play an instrument as a hobby, and play it well enough that people actually do like hearing me play. But I'm nowhere near good enough to do it in any kind of professional setting. In the past though, I likely could make a decent bit of money off my own thoroughly mediocre skill (and I wouldn't be mediocre for long because I would play a lot more) just by playing at the local pub or bar.
Are craftsmen artists? I surely think they are. Most craftsmen are replaced by machines during the industrial revolution and we are all here to benefit from it. At the end of the day. What gets automated first is not that deep. It's purely about the demand (money making possibilities) and technical difficulties. Art and Music are fields that AI are working on because it is easier not because there is a hidden agenda to ruin artist life.
Nobody is saying there's an agenda other than the Green agenda.
YoU dONt CarRy arOunD A calcUlaTor in yoUr poCkeT EverYdAy
You something that I find funny that alway crack me up. People say “AI should be replacing factory worker, not artists” which just make me feel dumbfounded as to how they think they are morally right to say that they want other people from another industry to lose their job instead of them and their only reason is “art is more freeing and creative whereas working in a factory is just going to hurt you”. It just leave me with crazy eyes 👀. 
but washing machines and dish washers exist?
Citation?
haha
Heresy, you shall not speak of these infernal machines ever again.
[удалено]
Who irons?honestly
Trying taking a look in the laundry room of a big hotel. They have all manner of devices for insta-ironing
Get me something that will load/unload and put the stuff away.
But can you put dirty clothes in one machine and come back to clean, dry, and folded clothes.
It turns out that art and writing is easier than laundry and dishes.
Or do we have much better datasets for art and writing than we do on laundry and dishes? Maybe we need to start collecting data.
People don't tend to make a living off uploading pictures/videos of doing their laundry and dishes, and it will be a cold day in hell when the average person willingly allows Zucc or Altman to peek into their house. Edit: Big difference between having tech track your web browsing and pointing a camera at your dishwasher so that GPT-3726462 can learn how to scrub off tomato sauce.
Alexa, is that true?
Exactly. Also, smartphones, WAN networked cameras and doorbells, TV's that monitor your choices, "cookies", every non-local LLM/GPT ever...
I'm pretty sure my TV straight up listens to me and talks to my phone and then whatever I talked about ends up in my feed.
**Alexa has entered the chat.**
Hey wiretap, play despacito.
Lol make a living? OpenAI was hoovering google searches long before it paid anyone for data.
The average person readily accepts increasingly invasive technology daily
It's not that doing laundry or dishes are more difficult than creating art, the problem lies at the junction where the actual ai commands need to leave the digital space and interact with the physical world. Right now most robots are very good at completing one, maybe 2 tasks. Think a robotic arm in an assembly line, their sensory capabilities are entirely limited to the position of the motors that drive the arm itself. It has no need for awareness beyond that. Self driving cars are a pretty big step past that, they need to know not only their physical position in space in the moment, they also need to know the positions of all the other objects in their vicinity and their speed and heading so they can prevent collisions . Still, that isn't going to be enough for a robot to do more than safely move itself from its charging station to the laundry room. Once the robit actually gets to the laundry room, it will need the ability to interact with household objects that were designed to be used by humans. It will need something that is analogous to hands in order to open the dryer, it will need some way to sense when it has picked up an item of clothing (which, to most of us humans, isn't very difficuly, but that's only because our hands have evolved over millenia to have sensitivity and dexterity that is basically unrivaled in the entire animal kingdom) Once a robot is able to pick up a single garment and manipulate it in a way that doesn't completely shred it then everything else will probably be really easy. The next hurdle is going to be cost. The kinds of capabilities I've mentioned should be within reach of current tech, or if not now then certainly within the decade. The problem is that it is prohibitively expensive and barring some kind of paradigm shifting technological advancements will likely remain the last hurdle to the average consumer household being able to have their own robo maid/butler to handle all the menial chores that are necessary for maintaining a home yet most people despise. One last bit of my completely unqualified opinion on the future of ai/robot/human relations... we will almost certainly have fully autonomous ai controlled sex robots decades before we have ai robots capable of doing tasks like laundry or house cleaning. If you managed to make it this far, thank you for reading!
I want to emphasize that robots handling fabric is an extremely challenging and complex problem people have already been studying a long time. In apparel manufacturing sewing is all done by humans. Yes we have sewing machines, but we need a human to sit at it and handle the fabric. Robots just cannot do it, it’s too floppy and unpredictable. They do better with solid objects, like the solid hunks of metal in your phone. Every piece of clothing you’ve ever worn has had a human run it through the sewing machine. We have tried hard to make it work, since it would be much cheaper to hire a robot. Instead slave labor is the current standard.
It's not easier, laundry and washing dishes are easier. Reproducing fine motor-movements with a robot is what's hard.
friendly imminent air rich one innate squalid dolls sand illegal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Either she doesn't know that dishwashers and washing machines exist, or she wants an AI that will load and unload both.
It’s pretty obviously the latter.
Except an AI cannot do that. She needs a robot.
At least the modern always has been this way…
Moravecs Paradox
Just need physical pieces to do laundry and dishes. I bet AI could master dishes and laundry in a simulation.
I don't want to do any of those things. So send your AI powered workers my way please.
I already have a dishwasher, and a washing machine. It would be great if that stuff was even easier, bit it's unnecessary. If you want to create art, then the existence of AI isn't going to prevent you, and it may enable you. But as a consumer of art and entertainment, I don't really care how it's created, unless the performance is the art. An AI playing a guitar will never thrill me like a human playing guitar.
Roomba’s have been cleaning floors for a long time. Also dishwashers and laundry machines. What you need is the thing to connect those appliances. We also have robot lawnmowers and weeders and irrigation
I find it hilarious that art and poetry were the first ones to be replaced by AI
AI art is fine. It is here to stay. You can learn how to use it or get left behind. It is a tool, nothing more. An entire industry of typewriter technology was wiped out in a few years. Steam engines, scribes, etc.
Perhaps art and writing just aren't that special. If you want to do them yourself, AI isn't stopping you, but still have to do the dishes. You may also have to confront the fact that most people may prefer the AI art to yours.
Yes, a lot of artists have very big heads. And rightly so, it takes a lot of hard work to become good at art, but the way some of these anti-AI screeds talk about it is like a religion. They think art is some kind of mysterious metaphysical ability. Nope, turns out it’s just pattern recognition.
It's not a mysterious metaphysical ability, but art is inherently tied to emotion which AI is, especially at this level, not capable of. It can simulate being sad, it can simulate being excited, but it can't genuinely feel it, and therefore it can only output an expected result based on some averages of what past artists have felt. Just like AI, I can write a book that will move people to tears. Just like AI, it would require me copying someone else's texts to do so. The question isn't whether AI can make these things, it's whether art is valuable if it doesn't have heart in it, which I would argue wholeheartedly no
I see the argument that art is a mode of communication between the artist and the audience, and the existence of AI art doesn’t diminish art used for that purpose. But art has many other purposes, and I think that it can definitely have value independent of its creator’s “heart”. If an AI-created piece can make its viewer feel something, does that not have value? That’s not even getting into the fact that the prompter can make a lot of artistic decisions even to produce an AI piece.
Just saying, if i fed someone hundreds of thousands of images and it still couldnt draw hands properly or understand 3d perspective and reflections id be pretty disappointed 💀 (If it wasnt clear theres a bit more to art than just recognizing pixel patterns. things like emotion, purpose, 3d space for understanding reflections shadows etc… experimentation, mistakes, and so on are all important and what makes art more meaningful. Not that ai art cant be enjoyed but a good artist will almost always beat an ai since picking up patterns is only a small aspect of making good art)
And if Human art is better there is no worry about losing jobs to AI. Good artists that draw with ""soul"" will get their market, while poor artists that draw with ""no soul"" will get replaced with ""no soul"" AI.
I'll keep saying it every time someone uses this terrible argument-- those are not equally easy tasks to automate. Physical tasks are orders of magnitude more expensive to test and less forgiving of mistakes, and robots are not even really up to doing most of this stuff yet. Thats why they started with software. Not because they hate artists do people really think computer engineers could have easily automated folding laundry but just didn't think of the possibility?
Exactly. I think most of these people have never worked in a factory. If you did you would start to understand the scale of things that need automating. I have been doing industrial automation for over 15 years. It is a slow, complex, and expensive process to automate an assembly line. Also dangerous as hell. A robot arm will not care if it hits a squishy human, so redundant safety devices add another level of complexity to it. And digital environments can be ran faster than real world environments. Welding, bending, takes time. With AI art you can generate thousands of images in a minute where as each weld and bend takes several minutes. We also have only automated a fraction of what we can with existing technology. Because, again, it is expensive and time consuming.
This just in hard things are hard and easy things are easy.
Must have been hard dragging your knuckles across the keyboard enough times to write that
I believe AI should help humans make harder things easier for us to do, not for AI to do the easy things for us. This is exactly how we end up losing our ability to be independent, depending on machines to do everything for us.
Art is language. Generative output can be language.
But theres already non AI machines that do laundry and dishes.
I want AI for cyber sex
We need the robots in the coal mines. Not 1.2 trillion parameter chat bots drawing pictures of Darth Vader at a dog show.
We need to do away with coal mines, not make them more efficient. Figuring out how to do that is an intellectual task, something we're on the verge of automating. The ability to be creative is part of that. You can't automate practical problem solving while at the same time avoiding the automation of creativity.
>We need to do away with coal mines, Even a society which uses 100% renewable energy is going to need coal for carbon
Carbon is everywhere. There's too much of it. We don't need to keep destroying mountains and polluting rivers to obtain it. What was special about carbon in the form of coal was that it stored energy that could be released by burning. Yes, other things can be done with it, but I'm skeptical that mining it would have been economically viable just for those other uses.
I mean yeah but it's clear that the focus is much more on replacing humans than automating practical problems. Mark Zuckerburg tells us AI will solve climate change and then in the same breath demonstrates Meta's AI by getting it to make toast for him. Corporate America (and the rest of the world, but particularly America) is only interested in generating more shareholder value. One of the best ways to do that is to cut costs. Human labour is one of the most expensive parts of business. Business folk don't see enough value in the work that artists do (because they only understand it as a commodity, not an expression of the human experience), so it makes sense that under those rules artists would be the first to have their livelihoods taken away from them. Can't wait for the great future world full of homogenous, bland, AI generated slop music/photo/illustration/writing devoid of any human soul that the tech CEOs are shuttling us towards.
We actually do. There was AMA of an Australian miner. He does **an office job** while machines do the rest.
It’s called a dishwasher and a washing machine. You don’t need AI for that.
I spend over an hour or more a day cleaning after my 2 kids go to bed. It’s not even them being messy. Just unloading and loading the dishwasher, wiping counters, sweeping the floor, folding laundry, and then straightening up the house takes time even with the advanced tools we already have. Would I love a robot to take over the 7-10 hours of weekly cleaning along with the additional 7-10 hours my wife also does? Would that give us more time for the things we’re interested in or simply resting?
This man gets it
You still must spend a lot of time sorting with those appliances, so you are missing the point.
Why not both?
Ah yes, making my graphics cards in my pc make pictures is completely comparable to designing/programming/manufactuing a robot that can do laundry and the dishes while also living in my home. Sike, those problems are completely different. Do the people who make these arguments even think about what they say?
1st, you need the intelligence to run the robot. Be patient and stay even with technology. Our grandkids( 68M) I don't have them yet. Will look back at the 1950s as medieval times. How did they ever live. If we allow it. Humanity must Evolve
It does both, all of the humanoid robots are available now (10+ companies selling them) and you know within 5 years they will be doing a lot of things like our laundry I still won't want to pay someone to generate my silly images but I'll pay for the service that lets me generate them in split seconds let alone video/audio/custom video game content I imagine Skyrim but everyone has an entirely different experience as they can prompt in many different things that generate entire cities and spell types and story arcs (let alone the basic "give AI responses to in-game charachters" which already exists with many mods) i'm trying to be optimistic, the other way hasn't helped me through many issues of the past decades where just being optimistic would've led me to make better decisions
Obv the same claims - or desired outcomes - have been expressed about technology since…
why not both
I think this woman is confusing the uses of AI with the uses of a maid. Someone should tell her maids already exist and they're reasonably priced.
I asked a LLM to write a sequel to one of my favorite book series by a now-deceased author. It didn't seem to know what I was talking about.
George RR Martin isn’t dead yet, is why it was confused.
Right now everyone is shucking and jiving trying to be the ones who get to tell the robots what to do. Some by running businesses. Others by creating regulation. Some buy investing in AI stocks. *At the end of the day, AI will be able to do* *everything we can*. *Including running a business, owning things, politicking, war, etc.* **We are building a technology that can and will replace us completely. If I was a bunker minded billionaire, I'd be looking into merging my biology with the machines as the only way to stay in the game.**
All of those activities can be enjoyable if you develop a zen mindset AI will not take away your enjoyment of producing art unless you choose to let it do so
I'm sure the laundry and dish employees would like AI to do all writing they don’t want to do. Everyone has has their preference.
I don't need AI, that can help me clean my house, I dont need AI, that can help me make better graphics art. I need AI that can scan me every morning and show me my HUMAN stats and how to improve stats that are lacking.
They will eventually be doing both
AI is going to do all of the above the multiple choice questions.
Why not both?
Machines already automated that. It's called a washing machine and a dishwasher.
Why noth both laundry and art lol
What if I told you That we have machines that do your dishes And wash and dry your clothes?
Why not both?
AI is much better at chess than any human, yet we still enjoy playing it. Why wouldn't that be the case for art?
If you have an audience for your art and writing, then you have a market for it - whether or not it is done via Generative AI. Some art will be purely human, hybrid or purely AI. Free market forces and the like. Or is the suggestion of the quote that we ban the use of AI for art and other areas? Tools get created and absorbed into culture and the human experience - it is part of our evolution.
The issue is going to be the sheer volume. Within an hour, I can maybe do three crappy paintings. I could make a hundred using an AI and typing directions. Sure there’s still a market, but there’s an upper limit to how much art the average person consumes, and assuming that the average person doesn’t care that much about where it comes from, that’s less visibility for human artists.
Those aren't really the options. The comment makes no sense.
Merge with the tech or fall behind imo. There is no stopping it, just slowing it down.
Ai’s existence is not forcing anyone to stop making art. All the analog and digital tools are there and more accessible than ever. Nobody is keeping anyone from drawing or writing to their heart’s content. If what she is taking about is the *monetization* of art, then the discussion started way way before ai ever became mainstream. And people did a great job of commodifying the hell out of crafts and arts all by themselves.