Will AI make humans meaningless

[Danioover9000]

   You know what I hate more in this situation? The negative framing of the doomsday AI and AGI systems that may or may not destroy humanity, but it's this energy, this negative pessimistic nihilistic outlook of AI disruption=human destruction that these very hyper logical and nihilistic determinist/realists view the world and this situation. It's overall not healthy, it may be partially true but mostly false and unproductive to be negative.

[Scholar]

On 8.4.2023 at 0:11 AM, Leo Gura said:

That would be called copyright infringment. We already have strong systems to block that. No serious platform allows that and never will.

All art is derivative. The AI just has to take whatever it knows is good about your art and extract it, create an instant derivative version of it that takes the essence while making it appear to be a new work of art.

Guess who will own the most sophisticated AI systems? Guess who also has control over the vast majority of public access to art?

[vindicated erudite]

On 10/02/2023 at 8:45 PM, Prana_y4na said:

Why study anything if AI will do it way better by a factor of trillions in a fraction of a moment?

You study so YOU can understand things. If AI is able you comprehend something 1 million times better than you, you still don't understand it. If AI is 1 billion times smarter than a human being we can still program AI to explain concepts it understands in forms we can understand. 

On 10/02/2023 at 8:45 PM, Prana_y4na said:

Do you think that AI will replace musicians, painters, programmers, creators, film makers, workers in all kinds of industries?

It can if people don't use their brains. We can also learn from AI which will allows us to become better at these professions. You are not born to work, you are approaching Ai from a neoliberal (brainwashing) mindset. 

AI will make capitalism (which is the actual problem here) irrelevant since hard drives will be able to replace entire corporations. People are scared of AI because they're afraid they compete against it but why do we need to compete for resources in the first place? 

On 10/02/2023 at 8:45 PM, Prana_y4na said:

What incentive I have to do anything about my passions if I already know that I'm about to be dumped by an AI. In about less than 5 years maybe?

The fact that music is your hobby should be enough of an incentive. 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

On 2023-04-20 at 10:51 PM, Scholar said:

All art is derivative. The AI just has to take whatever it knows is good about your art and extract it, create an instant derivative version of it that takes the essence while making it appear to be a new work of art.

Guess who will own the most sophisticated AI systems? Guess who also has control over the vast majority of public access to art?

   The implications being that this will negatively effect copyright laws, infringements and is disruptive to some forms of income like royalties, commissions or wage value when the AI in question can perform in the same metrics better than the artist in that field can. To me it'll be unethical if the AI program copies 80% of artworks from an existing artist, who's getting royalties from past works being purchased, and needs commissions for current works, because then newer customers will gravitate to the AI program than the original artist, and maybe the older customer base would start preferring the AI programs too. I think the ideal ratio, should be 50/50, that an AI is allowed to copy below 50% of an existing body of work if the artist is alive and depends on the income from those royalties and commissions.