As an open source contributor and musician who is not rich, I am pretty stoked about the engineering, scientific and mathematical advancements being made in my lifetime.

I have only become more creatively enabled when adopting these tools, and while I share the existential dread of becoming unemployable, I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation.

I do not have selective guilt over modern generative tools because I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies.

▲

overgard 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, if you consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs, "creatively enabled" would be a luxury at the top of the pyramid with "self actualization". Luxuries don't matter if the things at the bottom of the pyramid aren't there -- i.e. you can't eat or put a shelter over your head. I think the big AI players really need a coherent plan for this if they don't want a lot of mainstream and eventually legislative pushback. Not to mention it's bad business if nobody can afford to use AI because they're unemployed. (I'm not anti-AI, it's an interesting tool, but I think the way it's being developed is inviting a lot of danger for very marginal returns so far)

	▲	jacquesm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I think the big AI players really need a coherent plan for this if they don't want a lot of mainstream and eventually legislative pushback. That's by far not the worst that could happen. There could very well be an axe attached to the pendulum when it swings back. > Not to mention it's bad business if nobody can afford to use AI because they're unemployed. In that sense this is the opposite of the Ford story: the value of your contribution to the process will approach zero so that you won't be able to afford the product of your work.

▲

johnnyanmac 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation.

I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument.

>I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies.

You seem to forget the blood shed over the history that allowed that tech to benefit the people over just the robber barons. Unimaginable amounts of people died just so we could get a 5 day workweek and minimum wage.

We don't get a benficial future by just laying down and letting the people with the most perverse incentives decide the terms. The very least you can do is not impede those trying to fight for those futures if you can't/don't want to fight yourself.

▲

Wyverald 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>> I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation.

> I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument.

It seems to me that GP is merely recognizing the parts of technological advance that they do find enjoyable. That's rather far from the "I am very intelligent" comic you're referencing.

> The very least you can do is not impede those trying to fight for those futures if you can't/don't want to fight yourself.

Just noting that GP simply voiced their opinion, which IMHO does not constitute "impedance" of those trying to fight for those futures.

	▲	johnnyanmac 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>GP is merely recognizing the parts of technological advance that they do find enjoyable. Machine fabrication is nice. Machine fabrication from sweatshop children in another country is not enjoyable. That's the exact nuance missing from their comment. >GP simply voiced their opinion, which IMHO does not constitute "impedance" of those trying to fight for those futures. I'd hope we'd understand since 2024 that we're in an attention society, and this is a very common tactic used to disenfranchise people from engaging in action against what they find unfair. Enforcing a feeling of inevitability is but one of many methods. Intentionally or not, language like this does impede the efforts.

▲

nozzlegear 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As an open source maintainer, I'm not stoked and I feel pretty much the opposite way. I've only become more annoyed when trying to adopt these tools, and felt more creative and more enabled by reducing their usage and going back to writing code by hand the old fashioned way. AI's only been useful to me as a commit message writer and a rubber duck.

> I do not have selective guilt over modern generative tools because I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies.

This seems overly optimistic, but also quite dystopian. I hope that society doesn't become as integrated with these shitty AIs as we are with other technologies.

▲

blibble 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies

I'd rather be dead than a cortex reaver[1]

(and I suspect as I'm not a billionaire, the billionare owned killbots will make sure of that)

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1egtkzqZ_XA

▲

callc 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can say the same thing as we invented the atomic bomb.

Cool science and engineering, no doubt.

Not paying any attention to societal effects is not cool.

Plus, presenting things as inevitabilities is just plain confidently trying to predict the future. Anyone can san “I understand one day this era will be history and X will have happened”. Nobody knows how the future will play out. Anyone who says they do is a liar. If they actually knew then go ahead and bet all your savings on it.

	▲	peyton 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I dunno, I take a more McLuhan-esque view. We’re not here to save the world every single time repeatedly.