What I find exceptionally frustrating is that whenever there is talk about artists, illustrators, and writers being replaced, the response from programmers is almost a universal "automation is good, everything will be cheaper, they weren't really creative anyway."
It's a psychedelic ride, watching humans construct AI. Unlike other automations, it automates faster and evolves faster than anything before, making it much harder for society to adapt. I often wonder if we've crossed the threshhold of a "speed limit of adaptation".
Even if we haven't, it's an important question to ask and yet no one, especially the technophiles, are asking it except in private or in very superficial ways. Personally, I think there's an underlying fear to the whole thing: everyone fears that AI replacement may be total, so everyone is trying to get ahead of the curve so that they become the one doing the replacing, instead of the one being replaced.
I believe we crossed the speed limit a few thousand years ago. Human evolution is so much slower than our technology has been since the agricultural revolution.
It's a psychedelic ride, watching humans construct AI. Unlike other automations, it automates faster and evolves faster than anything before, making it much harder for society to adapt. I often wonder if we've crossed the threshhold of a "speed limit of adaptation".
Even if we haven't, it's an important question to ask and yet no one, especially the technophiles, are asking it except in private or in very superficial ways. Personally, I think there's an underlying fear to the whole thing: everyone fears that AI replacement may be total, so everyone is trying to get ahead of the curve so that they become the one doing the replacing, instead of the one being replaced.