I guess I could have been clearer on the connection between the original comment and my reply. In my opinion, the "direct attack on human dignity" comes when someone starts projecting the depressing mindset I described outward. To continue the analogy, it's not just being satisfied with internet porn for yourself, it's telling someone else "you don't need an intimate relationship because you can always access internet porn" and I think it's fair to categorize that as a "direct attack on their human dignity".

You have tortured the meaning of the term "blood diamond" to further a narrative. "Blood diamond" is a perjorative, meant to reduce the value of mined diamonds by bringing human exploitation to the minds of those looking to purchase jewelry. De Beers very much wants that term to go away. They also have a narrative, which is that lab diamonds are "synthetic" and that only natural diamonds are worth buying.

>The point of viewing art is to reflect on how you perceive it. That's true regardless of the artist/author, and regardless of the blood (effort) (or not {AI}) used to craft it.

"Art" as a term becomes meaningless with this definition. Once you disconnect art from its creation, everything becomes art. A sunset can be beautiful, but it's not art if a human doesn't capture it in some way. A pile of dog shit on the sidewalk can evoke emotions, but perceiving it doesn't turn it into art. The decisions of an artist are central to the whole endeavor and that is what is communicated. That communication doesn't have to be unambiguous, intentional, or conscious, but it has to be there to make something "art".

I have actually referenced Duchamp's Fountain before in similar conversations about AI art because I think it's a great example of what makes art art. The art itself isn't the toilet, it's the act of elevating a toilet to the status of art. If you don't know the context of the physical item, it loses all artistic merit because the item itself is not the art. The whole thing is more performance art than sculpture.

I'll freely admit that LLMs can be used in art in a similar way. You can certainly make LLM output the core of some performance art piece, but that doesn't make the LLM's output art itself or make it interesting on any level outside the context of its creation. Engaging with that short story as its own art would be like primarily judging the Fountain on the aesthetic qualities of the curves of the porcelain.

>I want it to do my taxes for me, it doesn't need to be Picasso

It sounds like you are commenting in the wrong thread then. This article and thread is about what happens when people try to make it Picasso (or experience Picasso's work for them.)

> creating being fundamental to the human experience

Fundamental, I can agree with. Exclusive? Clearly not. Not anymore.

People can still create now, even in spite of AI. Will anyone pay for it? Who knows. Doubtful.

> The biggest fault with our current socioeconomic system

I can agree with this. I believe that at this point the only hope left for humanity is to leverage AIs to the max and achieve a post-scarcity society. It's our only chance, and things are gonna get ugly if we fail.

The socioeconomic argument is sound, just don't let it get twisted into "but think of all the creators, the super special noble humans, they deserve protection against the AI onslaught".

Nobody cared about all the countless skilled labourers who were disrupted and automated away by technology. Asking us to shed tears for artists now is honestly offensive, doubly so when the people asking are programmers who literally make bank by automating away the jobs of others.

We are job destroyers. Our work inherently reduces the set of people who are still economically valuable. We are all about getting more done for less. Our only hope lies in finishing our journey, and making it possible to do everything for nothing at all.

You're not exactly winning me over with these "but these specific humans with noble professions are special and shouldn't be replaced" takes either.

I mean, what's this supposed to mean? It's totally fine to replace all those blue collar labourers with mass production factories, but replacing programmers and artists with AI is somehow a crime against humanity? Absolute nonsense.

This discourse does nothing but betray one's own sense of superiority over the lesser humans. Enlightened thought workers who thought their positions were unassailable and their leverages secured, but were proven wrong by the very technologies they helped create.

It's got nothing to do with preferences and everything to do with reality, and the reality is AIs are changing the world and the only hope left for us humans at this point is that they will somehow enable us to achieve a post-scarcity society.