Submitted by SpinCharm t3_11c48ut in Futurology

The advent of the global interconnectedness of thoughts and ideas through social networking and the web has me thinking that our own thoughts and ideas are rarely original or unique. Most of us live in fairly repetitive, predictable and derivative ways that share broad commonality with a great many others.

We see it in Reddit comments, where an idea will trigger numerous responses that share the same origin, such as a meme or line from a movie or tv show. We see it in the predictive abilities of Facebook and Amazon, and the spectator chants at sports events.

Our social network bubbles reinforce this constantly, creating a sympathetic harmonizing of individuals into a larger single commonality of quasi community.

A singularity, where the majority of the masses comfortably reside, and where it becomes increasingly difficult to find original thought or expression of ideas.

This merging is an existential threat to the creative arts if fewer people are interested or willing to invest in the effort required to think outside of the walls that they reside within. And with less original thought comes less original material such as art, or music, or writing, and more manufactured similes generated by AI.

A couple of Reddit communities have driven this point home to me of late. r/vintage and r/antique are communities focused on objects older than 30 years or so, or older than 100 years. People post photos of items they own or are thinking of owning, always asking if it has monetary value.

The trouble is, more and more items that people are asking about are just mass produced merchandise manufactured in huge quantities for global sales at the lowest cost. There’s little intrinsic value in these items outside of novelty and nostalgia.

Someone will post an image of a 1970s portable tv or Cross pen or digital alarm clock radio, thinking that, because they’ve never seen one themselves, it might be rare or valuable.

It’s an understandable assumption that something that’s 50 years old might be valuable. After all, for all preceding generations of people, something 50 years old was valuable. Because back then, more things were made by hand, by craftsmen and artists, or locally, in small numbers.

Objects from 80 years ago were often made using materials that are scarce or considered valuable today, such as solid metals rather than amalgams, thick solid woods instead of veneers or lvl, woven threads instead of synthetic fabrics, and hand carved or blown glass instead of injection mold polystyrene.

So someone 30 years ago collecting vintage objects was collecting things that had intrinsic value such as originality, craftsmanship, uniqueness, innovative design, artistic merit, longevity, scarcity or durability. So the association of the concept of “vintage” was closely tied to collectibility and actual financial value.

But that’s no longer true for the most part. Something that’s vintage today means it might have been made in the 1970s or 1980s, and for someone born in the 21st century this might seem like a long time ago. But the overwhelming majority of things manufactured in the latter half of the 20th century were made in the millions, for mass consumption and global distribution.

Vintage is no longer about intrinsic value, it’s about collectibility for novelty, for alternative retro decorating and distinction from modernity. It’s about enjoying a popularity of furnishings and styles from a generation or two ago.

And that’s fine. But it represents a significant change in the ideas of quality and originality. Vintage objects (and soon, antique) are becoming less and less representative of originality and creativity and more about a representation of consumerism trends.

It’s this shift that I also seeas we enter the AI. Paintings can be generated to resemble any style; faces can be animated to bring life to still images. Deep fakes are becoming more difficult to discern and more intriguing to watch. The written word can be synthesized into books, news articles, and legal arguments, even resembling existing human authors.

But these are all derivative, blended and recombined based on mathematical and statistical models that have studied millions of people’s output. And in doing so, they produce the most common denominators of our supposed individuality, essentially blending and combining and revealing that there’s very little original thought in most of us. We are, statistically speaking, mostly repetition. And that’s not a comforting thought to most people.

AI output also reduces the ideas of quality and value, by replacing relatively scarce originality with mass produced popularity and commonality. In a generation or two, people looking for vintage and antique works of art, music, novels, movies etc will be collecting nothing but manufactured media made by machine and math, with no intrinsic value. The value of original thought and creative expression will slowly be lost to time and found in smaller and smaller pockets of humanity and individuals.

This might have a positive effect though. As more and more of our daily existence is created artificially, these generated objects, ideas, and media increasingly loses its value.

While today we can appreciate and value the effort and creativity of a music artist, very soon more and more music will be synthesized, and in doing so we will value it less. Movies, paintings, imagery, styles, fashion trends, news articles, fake news and real news will lose its value, because it’s not revealing any original, authentic, human insights and energies but merely synthesizing, reproducing, and blending countless prior works into an unidentifiable slurry of content.

Human-created art in all its forms will be overwhelmed by AI similes, driving artists into scarcity but also into increased value. There will be fewer human artists and craftsmen if there are fewer ways to earn a living, but those that remain may find that their efforts are valued more because of their relative rarity.

We’re already seeing this in the growing interest in restoration, preservation and handcrafting. More people are less willing to own mass produced consumer goods and more willing to pay for originality and quality, in turn supporting cottage industries over conglomerates and reinvigorating the values of scarcity, quality, and distinctiveness.

This is perhaps where opportunities lie in the future as AI inundates us with mediocrity and conformity, feeds us nutrition-less media, and keeps us coddled in our cocoons of complacency. As society has less need for workers, people will need ways to fulfill their needs beyond the basic Maslow bottom layers of safety, shelter, and sustenance.

Many will switch off and tune out as they always have, content to be spoon-fed their daily information, stimulation and recreation. But there will be new opportunities for creative expression, distinct from anything derivative and reductive that AI creates, valued by those also seeking nourishment that can’t be found in the mass produced marketplace.

Perhaps the era of AI that reveals and pushes a new generation of banality and commonality will also help us rediscover the value of individuality, and give many of us new opportunities of expression.

As always, it will come down to individuals to choose for themselves - or not.



You must log in or register to comment.

Surur t1_ja1knct wrote

Nothing much to disagree with except one point - AI media will not be mass produced. It will be as individualized and addictive as your Facebook and tiktok feed.


TheSensibleTurk t1_ja1n3wf wrote

So you're saying quasi-sapient sex robots with lifelike locomotion, computer driven self-articulation, memory retention and adaptiveness can be a thing within the next few decades?


just-cuz-i t1_ja1osy1 wrote

AI will change everything but it also won’t really change anything. There will always be people that are artistic and creative and that invent new things that others enjoy. Those people won’t be replaced by AI generic rehashing algorithms any more than they were replaced by the advent of mass marketing from the last century, despite all the changes to our society that brought. Point is, like the internet, like TV, like radio, like the printing press, it will lead to great changes in our society but it won’t change our inherent nature.


found_my_keys t1_ja1rbgw wrote

The fact that so much media is so easily replaced by AI is proof that a ton of media was already created by handing a prompt to an unknown creator. The fact that this creator was previously human has nothing to do with the prompt. The challenge in the future is going to be supporting artists who previously made money fulfilling prompts, until they create something they actually care about and can support themselves with.


Yuli-Ban t1_ja1rpsq wrote

> AI media will not be mass produced

Actually, it will be mass-produced. But put a pin in that.

> It will be as individualized and addictive as your Facebook and tiktok feed.

And I suppose the issue there is that a lot of people actively reject such addiction. I, for example, almost never use Facebook and can't even remember ever using TikTok. I will almost certainly be the exact opposite when it comes to synthetic media, but if reactions to AI art are any indication (and I mean on places like DeviantArt, YouTube, and Pixiv, not the Twitter pro-human artist protests), there's little chance that synthetic media will replace all media. Some people are just contrarians, while others have anthropocentric bias.

However, there is one other issue, and this is where I say to pull out the pin.

Media that is individualized is great and all, and we'll indulge in it without question. But that's certainly not all there'll ever be.

See, I agree wholeheartedly that AI is going to generate media very soon, and has even already started doing so. I even agree that most people will use synthetic media to generate media individualized to them. Where I disagree strongly is in the idea that humans stop sharing media and instead lose ourselves in our own fantasy worlds.

The cold fact is, humans are social apes. If we create something or like something, we're going to share it with others. Hence why I tend to think that synthetic media is being severely overhyped by some people, even as I say "we're going to create multimedia franchises in our bedrooms and could live in synthetic media bubbles within the better part of a decade."

Even if we become transhuman, I don't see social interaction being something we'll elect to take away. If anything, transcending our basic humanity towards higher levels of cognition only seems to make it more likely we'll engage in social interaction, but on levels we can't fathom. Not to mention I strongly doubt most people will become transhuman anyway.

If you value social interaction (and most people do as humans are hardwired for it), even if you spend a lot of time generating synthetic media, you're not going to completely lose yourself in your own fantasies.

The kneejerk reaction to synthetic media, and the Singularitarian hype for it, often acts as if the human need for social interaction doesn't exist. But I present the theory that, provided nothing bad happens, there will still be people attending live concerts and going to movie theaters and viewing live theatrical performances and seeing live sports performances in 30 years. That if YouTube is still around by then, a majority of videos will have some aspect of synthetic media to them— V-tubers and AI personalities playing fully AI-generated games for example, or AI personalities of historical figures discussing history to synthesized images and videos and simulations— but you could also still find humans giving their own thoughts and creations, and indeed, "human-created" might even be a lucrative tag.

I know it's easy to say "You probably would have predicted that the Internet was a fad in 1995" to any criticism of the dominant narratives of synthetic media. I'm not saying the Internet is a fad and that no one will ever download music because they will always value vinyl and CDs; if anything, I was predicting that before most people here even thought it was possible in their lifetimes. I'm saying that the opposite argument, that no one will ever buy music or attend live concerts because they can simply download mp3s or stream music, is just as fallacious.

I'm not saying that no one will ever use synthetic media to do anything because human-created art will always matter more; I'm saying that the arguments that we'll only ever consume media tailor-made for us and our preferences is one day going to be seen as just as outrageously silly of a prediction.

And that's why I agree with OP. Especially considering another angle to this: I think most people will utilize synthetic media to some extent, such as to edit existing media or create memes or something to that level, but very few will actually create whole movies, video games, and franchises, at least regularly. This is more likely with older generations and the hipsters of younger generations. It's easy to forget that most people alive today were born before the year 2000, and that in America, more than 2/3s of the population is older than 30. Maybe I'm not seeing something that others can, but thinking about this from the laziest and most consumeristic perspective combined with technophobia, I can absolutely see the majority of Boomers and Gen Xers just barely using synthetic media, such as to "make the fourth movie of the Dollars Trilogy" or "give me another season of Firefly" or "give us the fourth main Nirvana album" but otherwise stopping there and, for the most part, sharing whatever's created before moving on.


TirayShell t1_ja1srxk wrote

The Internet killed my individuality when it kept showing me 50 posts that said the same thing as mine that people posted before me. But it hasn't harmed my craftsmanship.


khamelean t1_ja1th5j wrote

Your assertion of loss of creativity and originality based entirely on anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. Once you account for the self selecting nature of your sample data and your own frequency bias, it pretty much falls flat on its face.


SpinCharm OP t1_ja1tn7a wrote

Spoken like a proper statistician and scientist.

Fortunately, I am neither, and am simply writing creatively. It's an opinion piece, intended to stimulate thought and discussion.


blueSGL t1_ja1vmoa wrote

What about this, with the same prompt/model/seed/...'settings'... combination you can pull the same image out of an image model as someone else

I can easily see there be a time where people generate [music/tvshows/movies/etc] themselves but share the created media and have other people vote and rank it.

e.g. head over to a website that hosts ratings for... AI generated Simpsons episodes and share all the 'settings' needed to load into your own system to recreate it.

Then you can brows by popular generated content, circa whatever month you happen to be in, or by all time, or whatever other metrics you can think of.

Everyone has the capability to generate new stuff and then has the ability to share it. Good stuff gets popular and becomes zeitgeist-y for a while, bad stuff just exists.


Yuli-Ban t1_ja1x0ql wrote


That's exactly what I predict.

> Everyone has the capability to generate new stuff and then has the ability to share it. Good stuff gets popular and becomes zeitgeist-y for a while, bad stuff just exists.

Indeed, this is essentially already the case on some websites, like Newgrounds, Soundcloud, and Reddit, except the capabilities are expanded even further.

Though again, I still predict that the "human-created" tag will exist and there will be some segregation between that which is created by humans and that which is created by machines, among other metrics (i.e. human prompted/AI-generated; human-created/AI-assisted, etc.)

Ideally, there will be as few bad actors as possible trying to corrupt such a tag. There might also exist the issue of copyright. Despite some predictions, I don't see copyright dying immediately. Indeed, if anything, I view copyright as being the last chokehold of "canonicity." You, or an AI, may generate the best-ever episodes of a certain TV show, but if the rightsholders say it's non-canon, then it's non-canon, period. Some may disregard their statement, but enough won't.

One other thing I predict is the demographics of all this.

Despite the democratization of media creation being imminent, I actually don't see the vast majority of people joining in on creation, even if the majority do join in on curation. The claims that this will be the case feel eerily reminiscent of the claims by the cyberdelic movement in the 1990s that the Internet will lead to direct democracy and total enlightenment, with every man an artist and every website an enlightened forum.

I predict 60% to 70% of people will stick to AI-generated memes, purely personal creations, edits to existing media, and other small things. Only about 10% to 20% of the population will be responsible for this massive explosion of content creation (and the remaining will stick with human-created media).


KiwiShortKing t1_ja1x5be wrote

I'd like to defend you here. I'm not sure what khamelean even means when they complain about anecdotal evidence and sample data, as you are making a philosophical point and you've outlined a valid premise. It's actually a very dismissive comment on their part.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that the method in which "AI" works is to harmonise and blend existing content, and in doing so, it both exposes and promotes the common features of what we do. And the scale and scope at which this operates means that it could stifle novel thinking, by both overexposing people to the same repeated concepts, and devaluing creative works (perhaps by mass production and efficiency) in a way that discourages people from producing novel content.

I think this is a reasonable concern, but it brings to mind older philosophical debates, like how you can define art (if at all). You have to tackle that problem first if you are to make a case for the distinction between the value of AI generated art and art produced by a human.


nuclearbananana t1_ja1xhi6 wrote

You're a good writer, have you thought of starting a blog? Feels like a waste to see good content being lost on reddit.

There's undoubtedly going to be a silver lining to AI generated art, in the same way we value handcrafted items over mass produced. The one and hope and dread as of late is in creating drawing/painting, with the end result to so easily achievable, all the value will switch the process, and the intention and feelings of the artist.


SpinCharm OP t1_ja1zi7b wrote

I’ll take a stab at it. Art (to me), is something created by someone that is intended to communicate at an emotional level.

While there are examples of things that meet that criteria that clearly aren’t art, I think almost all creations that are intended to be considered art by their creator meet that criteria.

Right or wrong I’ll stick with that for now and revise it in time. But with that, the question then is, Can AI create art?

Can AI create something with that intention of communicating at an emotional level?

So first, can AI create anything to begin with. I’ll just assume yes to keep the thought progressing. Next is whether AI can have intention.

Well, a computer virus has the clear intention of malicious acts. So computers or computer code can be said act with intent. I’m not particularly happy with that perspective but I can’t ignore precedent.

So that leaves whether a computer can intend to communicate at an emotional level. Clearly they can. A program can be executed that has the intention of eliciting an emotional response from a person.

So where does that leave us with my definition of, “Art (to me), is something created by someone that is intended to communicate at an emotional level.”

I have almost boxed myself into a corner here but there’s one out left and I’m going to take it. A computer isn’t “someone”. It’s “something”. Which means we need to review the classic agreement that computers aren’t people, no matter how clever they evolve to be. Neither is anything else in the universe. The only thing in the entire universe that is “someone” is a person.

If that changes in the future then I’ll need to review my definition. But for now, it stands. A computer can’t create art because, regardless of how complex its intentions are, how creative it’s output is, and how it makes us feel, it isn’t human and therefore what it creates isn’t art.

It’s something else. I don’t know what it is. But I (as of now) don’t consider it art. I don’t consider paintings created by dogs or monkeys art either. I don’t consider sunsets, or supernova, or the Fibonacci sequence art either.

Perhaps there needs to be a new word to describe the output of AI so that we preserve the meaning of art.

Or we need a better definition. But if we think we need a better definition, then we’re implicitly doing so to make a distinction between human and AI output and therefore don’t actually need to complete the exercise as we’ve already decided there’s a distinction we wish to make.

Getting back to your point. We need a way to define art in order to distinguish a difference between human and AI generated art.

But I think logically that’s no longer necessary. The need itself means we implicitly agree that there’s a difference. The rest is semantics.


SpinCharm OP t1_ja21sgg wrote

When I ponder that concern, it fits into a broader one of the value of anything computer generated. “Value” in this context isn’t just monetary or qualitative. It can also be trust. What value can we place on a news article written by computer if we have trust issues with it? We’re already seeing news videos comprising of a generated human speaking generated vocalisations on news topics. What is the value of this and how is that value affected by our trust of its source?

I imagine a future where we are inundated with a limitless supply of AI material. Video, music, printed word, appliances, living quarters, politicians, food.

While all of it will have some value, value is relative to the individual and to other similar generated outputs. But I am currently thinking that much of this will be eclipsed in value by those created by persons. The value of something made by a person instead of by machine will increase in those cases where it is of sufficient quality.

In that regard, AI products may provide a higher baseline of convenience and standard of living. But I suspect that we will start valuing things made by persons for their scarcity, uniqueness, and ability to communicate at a personal level.

When I extrapolate where I see AI going, I can imagine, like most of us, an idealized world of automation, simplification, adornment, convenience and safety. But when I placed myself in that picture I can’t help but think that I’m going to quickly become bored with all the spoon feeding and pampering that I imagine possible. It will all have value, but when we’re completely smothered by it all, it’s relative value diminishes.

We all value roads, and we couldn’t do without them for long. But they’re ubiquitous, expected, utilitarian, and endless. We all value them if we think about it, but for some of us, we value trails more. Or walkways. Or air corridors.

Because we receive a higher qualitative experience - higher value.

I suspect after people have gotten past this current fascination with digital watches, they’ll turn (back) to those things of higher qualitative value. Like art.


phosphite t1_ja237y1 wrote

This post is generated by ChatGPT. And the comments were also generated by ChatGPT. Just making AI discuss amongst itself.

Give it up and write something original you monkeys!


drekmonger t1_ja23aao wrote

I had an interesting conversation with ChatGPT about the idea of "semantic compression".

Imagine if popular TV shows were broadcast not as video, but as extremely detailed instructions to an AI model, which rendered the experience as if the model were a codec.

There could be knobs you could adjust during the inference. Like, "Make all the actors naked" or "Less graphic violence please!" Or, "I really don't like that guy's voice. Make him less annoying. Or, just write him out of the show, actually."

The AI model could inform you, "That change will have a significant impact on the narrative. Are you sure?" With enough changes, you'd be watching something completely different from what everyone else is.


Iffykindofguy t1_ja23w5f wrote

There was nothing more "original" about people before today.


UniversalMomentum t1_ja24l3f wrote

I never signed up to be an individual. I just want the easy life like all lifeforms before me. Path of least resistance please!


Ieatclowns t1_ja261h1 wrote

This is a great post and one I found a lot of comfort in. Thanks OP.


rileyoneill t1_ja26fok wrote

Museums are full of otherwise mundane objects from past eras. Its not just the best of the best examples of high culture that are worthy of museum display or archeological studies. A lot of very mundane items from our era will end up in a museum someday. These are items which connect us to the human experience. Society has generally become much more individualistic over time. Earlier periods were much more conformist and technology frequently set people free to socially experiment.

I am in the art business. AI Art is going to disrupt the art business. But its not going to somehow end art. If anything its going to free up artists to push further experimentation and allow humans to create things that were just not possible before. A lot of art has gotten stale and boring and has been popularized by wealthy coke heads who see it as an investment and then want to pump it up like a stock portfolio.

No one has a clear definition of art. Everyone has their own version of it. To some, it is the idea of taking established skills, and showing them off by creating pieces of art. To others its creating things which somehow connect to humans on an emotional level. AI art is very quickly doing the first one but the second one is going to be the challenge. AI is far from an expert in humans and the human experience.

For AI to connect to humans, on a human level, is going to create a drastically different world.

But technology causes people to break through and create new art. The commercialization of photography disrupted the art industry, which then pushed the world of art in the 20th century to extremely new places. This AI art will probably do the same. It already allows people to make quick and dirty digital portraits in various styles.

Art is an extremely difficult thing to do. Even for competent artists who are well 'skilled'. Creating intriguing work that humans take interest and connection to is very difficult. People have different tastes. People have difference experiences. There is a big difference between a rendering and a piece of fine art.


Classic-Ad4224 t1_ja26qm5 wrote

My guess is AI will do to internet what interstate did to American road-trips. Paraphrasing Steinbeck here, “American interstate highways have made it possible to travel from one side of the USA to the other and not see a single thing.” In Kentucky? McDonald’s! California? McDonald’s! It’s the next evolution, taking local character and human interaction, trading it for comfort and convenience


Roland245s t1_ja26vu6 wrote

What a bunch of malarkey, one off production has always been a smaller subsection People pay for uniqueness today just the way they did in the past , only now there are a lot more people, and therefore you need to punch out more mass production.


Worth_Procedure_9023 t1_ja29qa8 wrote

Craftsmanship in a lot of ways is just ADHD/OCD levels of attention paid to technically irrelevant details.

I built a table that weighed over 400lbs and is more sturdy than the wall it's bolted to. Why? Because I had a fear of my kids tipping it over.

I've got no doubt I could park my little car on it, and it would creak but hold. Why? Because I don't build things to be "just enough".

But the "just enough" mentality is what often enables the have-nots to actually have some nice shit.

Don't let the boomers convince you that craftsmanship is gone. It is just much harder to notice because craftsmanship has exceeded the ability of the layperson to perceive it.


the1j t1_ja2b0s6 wrote

You know what; thinking about the big picture I don't care that ai might do art or might automize jobs.

I'm scared for my own job and future. I work in customer support, something that would be pretty easy to replace via ai; and I'm completing an engineering degree, which may be be about to be radically transformed by AI which I have not learnt as im on my final few years.

maybe i'll look back in 30 year and maybe my worries will be for nothing and I'll adapt to the change, or maybe it'll all end bad; but i just have no way of knowing and that scares me


just-a-dreamer- t1_ja2bbg5 wrote

I would check out into a digital world anyway.

Make arrangements that my body shall be kept alive and create my dream world in the digital realm. I only contact other humans if I feel like it, don't have to live up to any standard that way.

How much would it cost to keep a human body function? 10k a year? Food, water, meds, waste disposal, heat, shelter, can't be that hard.


Rocket_3ngine t1_ja2de1r wrote

Your writing style is fantastic!

The repetitive content on social platforms and media resources creates a bubble of similar ideas. The appearance of the Internet laid the foundation for vanishing intercultural differences.

A 2014 book, “The Culture Map” by Erin Meyer, discusses societal and cultural differences.

Even though the cultures of Asian and Western cultures are different, I can no longer say that in 2023 the difference will remain the same.

The current interconnectedness bursts the cultural gap because international companies have adopted doing business with other nations. The employees' international experience is transmitted locally through daily communication with their colleagues, friends, and family, blurring the boundaries of cultural differences.

Therefore intensifying international communication between nations generates similar ideas, and AI will only intensify the process.


321gogo t1_ja2dgqq wrote

I don’t think people want this generally though. A huge part of media is being able to connect with others over it. On top of that most people are attached to the message the creators are trying to convey behind their art.


aim456 t1_ja2dvhe wrote

Unlike mass production AI and home production of high quality goods will be individualistic just like any cottage industry of the past. If a woman has an AI design an outrageous outfit for some fashion event and manufactured for her by some fancy new machine is it not representative of that persons desires should they be seen wearing it at the oscars in the year 3000? Things are not valuable just because they are made by human hands. You are confusing the limited, dull mass production of times gone past with the endless possibilities of the future. Let’s not forget how we’ll likely have a lot more time on our hands to be creative with the tools that AI can provide, whilst not having to work a boring, meaningless job to put food on the table.


cbawiththismalarky t1_ja2e81z wrote

One of the abilities that AI could do is help ideas come to life quicker from all of us, maybe the disintermidiatory effect will be that any idea can be brought to life from any person and that the idea of craftsmanship moves away from the doing into thinking, and the true skill will be in describing what we want.


Leviathan_of-Madoc t1_ja2erik wrote

I 'm having a hard time deciding if this is categorized under Millennials are ruining X or The Atuomatic Buggy Whip will ruin old fashioned buggywhips. Shit changes and the changes brought by AI aren't yet beginning. We're just using them as toys right now. Also Craftsmanship and Originality in the 20th century was dogshit poor. Most everyone just bought one of two products at a store to fix problems and if something broke thye re-created it with the most basic parts possible. Nobody was designing things in their home 3D printer. Nobody was documenting their lives and sharing it with their fanbase. Only Rock Bands had home recording studios. No Artisanal Foods. No Artistry clothing. Absolute dead-reckoning minimal importing of foreign cultural art or craft.


SpinCharm OP t1_ja2fj6n wrote

There's also the unknown subset of viewers that would like to just get lost inside the alternate realities of fictional tv, disconnecting from contact with people for as long as possible. If that experience was generated and controlled by AI with no outside involvement, it could be quite addictive to some.


Northstar1989 t1_ja2fye0 wrote

>As always, it will come down to individuals to choose for themselves - or not.

That's a laugh.

Do you think people actually have CHOICES in today's society?

The crushing competitive pressures of Neoliberal Capitalism have forced firms to cut every possible expense, and pay their workers as little as possible, all in order to maximize profits (which, even more sickeningly, is actually encoded into law for publicly-traded corporations in the US).

Why is all this relevant to this discussion? Let's see...

First, the pressures on firms will force companies to do away with human-created products and services wherever AI-provided ones can possibly substitute for them.

Second, the crushing pressure of ever-falling wages relative to the Cost of Living (while wages are technically going up, until very recently with the post-Covid labor shortages they weren't outpacing the Cost of Living- and thus real wages were actually falling in many countries...) will force most people to buy AI-msde goods and services just to have a prayer of making ends meet. This isn't a choice- not unless you consider it a real "choice" between spiraling debt leading to homelessness, and making bills...

Third and finally, the growing power of the rich relative to everyone else, accelerated by AI putting an even greater premium on Capital (by improving returns), will enable them to do even more to corrupt politicians and push through legal changes accentuating their wealth and power: putting the gas on the steady transformation of the US, Japan, and Western Europe into a bunch of Oligarchies where most people have ZERO say in the political process (in the US, at least, this is already the case). This will lead to problems like EVEN MORE consolidation of housing markets under an increasingly-tiny number of private equity companies, putting further economic pressures on ordinary people. Again, forcing people to buy AI products if they don't want to end up homeless.

I've said this before, will say it again: AI and Capitalism are NOT compatible. If we stick with Capitalism, emerging AI technologies like this will eventually completely ruin the Working Class within 100 years or so...


SpinCharm OP t1_ja2hf0u wrote

I agree that things are not valuable just because they are made by human hands. That woman using AI to design a dress results in a dress that was made by AI from a human's ideas. AI in this example is a tool, like the chisel that carves the marble statue.

But a dress made entirely by AI with no guidance by a person? To me, these lose value quickly regardless of the uniqueness of the product. I subscribe to several r/architecture r/architecturePorn etc. subreddits in here and there are frequently posts of images of buildings created by AI. They are fantastic! Original, innovative, breakthrough concepts. But after the first dozen of these the wow factor dims; after the first 100 of these they lose their lustre completely.

Why? Because for me at least, they are no longer original creations of someone's imagination. They become an endless line of computer-generated imagery that holds no emotional connection or value.

Perhaps I bore easily or I have a low tolerance for repetition. I felt the same way about those tik tok videos that morph a plain face into a fabulous one. After a year of seeing them, they are meaningless. Valueless. Even though each one is a product of a person's ideas, they become all the same at a higher, perhaps meta, level. "Oh, there's software that can make a person look like anything. Oh look - here's the thousandth person using software to change their features.". Yawn.

I suspect when the first person wears an AI-generated outfit, it will be noticed and probably raved about. But when the 1000th person does it, will it generate the same enthusiasm, or will most people switch off? And at a broader level, when the millionth person uses AI to create something, or the billionth, will anyone take notice? Will anyone care? I suspect not, because there will be little value in something that is mass produced for the individual, in the same way that there's little value in something mass produced for the masses today.


SilverMedal4Life t1_ja2hpbn wrote

It reminds me of this scene from Futurama:

Ignoring the obvious anti-gay propagamda parallels (which was probably the purpose of the scene to begin with), there's something to be said about disconnect with other human beings and human experiences if the artificial is preferable - or at least 'good enough'.

We see this to some extent with shut-ins, like the Japanese hikikomri:


SpinCharm OP t1_ja2hu1q wrote

One thing that is common among all your examples is that in each one, there were people discussing, debating, critiquing, influencing, and petitioning. We need vigorous discussion from many viewpoints. We need stimulating arguments to help inform not only other's, but our own ideas and opinions. Perspective - use it or lose it as a wise old book once taught me.


theericle_58 t1_ja2ie22 wrote

Side note, please pardon the digression. This groups comments are one of the most intelligent, insightful and articulate that I've read in years of Reddit.


MoiMagnus t1_ja2imhr wrote

For connecting with others, yes and no.

Yes, peoples want to connect with others. But the scale at which modern media connect us is overkill, and peoples actually seek to be part of smaller bubbles.

For examples, instead of an individual customizing their own show, imagine a streamer/youtuber doing it. Or even, imagine of group of friends doing it together, they now have a shared experience that is "unique".

As for preserving the message, yes, I agree that this is a core reason why generated content will not fully replaced the initial content. However, in the same way peoples have fun replaying a videogame with absurd mods (like a randomisers that shuffle every character), there will be a place for generated variants of shows.


d_gold t1_ja2jlol wrote

Agreed; advancements in photography, for example, from pin-hole cameras to digital cameras lowered barriers with every technological improvement and made photography accessible to millions/billions, but the cream still floats to the top and people can discern what they like and don’t like- deciding what is and isn’t art is human. Digital photography can be almost entirely automated in its function- the aperture, shutter speed, iso - all chosen based on math and computers. It’s the human elements of context, experience, personality, taste and interests that will separate “good” and “bad” photos.

I think AI will be wielded in a similar way- it will radically shift the speed and cost of content creation, as did the advancements of digital photography, but the curation, context and experiences they create will be shaped, interpreted and judge by humans as art or not art.


LivingxLegend8 t1_ja2k4h4 wrote

The title seems very pretentious.

Who were all these anonymous original craftsman of the 20th century?


aim456 t1_ja2kkrh wrote

I think the point I’m making is how would you know? Dalle2 at least has a marker in the corner but anyone could take a picture of several building they like and input them to an algorithm that would give them something unique that they can even modify to the finest of details. How would you know if that level of interaction/back and forth happened or not? Are you just going to say “bah, just another AI invention”. In fact, how do you even know something is AI in the first place never mind all the possibilities to have a human made it.

Your provided examples are pretty basic. The kind of crap we see shared on social media. But the actual possibilities are endless. To continue my own example, just imagine the ability to take that picture of a building you refined with AI and now have the structural schematics including all the load values and other architectural requirements generated for you to meet building codes. This could even go so far as to create an IKEA style instruction guide on how to build along with truck full of parts delivered by machine and, well even have machines put it together for you.

Have we really lost out creatively with this or gained infinitely from it?

This reminds me of the origin of the word sabotage in that the cottage industry workers, who feared losing their jobs to machines threw their wooden shoes called sabots into the machinery. But mass production has made all our lives so much easier. AI had the ability to turn our world into Eden and unlock the stars and even the secrets to space and time itself.


Sudden-Orange1499 t1_ja2ldcy wrote

Loss of individuality is not due to AI. It will worsen of course. Most people are already pretty bland because they let themselves get domesticated to the fear of criticisms from other people. The school system rings a bell as if you're Pavlov's dog and then don't get me started on the media. People did this to themselves. Most dogs stopped hunting a while ago. Now are shocked they're waking up too late. Apparently rich people wishing they had "personality" is a thing. All wealthy people have to do to fit in is buy brand items. Okay, so before algorithms and the social graph it was schools and the 3 main media channels programming you. We are in a paradigm shift. The generation that bore the worst abuse of that is still around. They got computers in their houses at 35 when their kids were absolutely 5 years old. The algorithms were put on the children so young it's as if they never had a chance. Now they are questioning things because the algorithms feel fake. They are not perfected. Also the gap between the generations is showing the differences in programming. So people who have had a fighting spirit and were different actually get rewarded in this day and age more than the conforming ones. The more unique the content the better right?

If you didn't know yourself in this physical realm you're going to get assigned one in the meta verse or one from an AI that thinks for you because deep down we know people are too lazy to even want to find themselves. Most would have done it by now if it was as easy as ordering amazon products to your doorstep.


Mutiu2 t1_ja2m2p5 wrote

If AI can eleminate clickait thread titles and long rambling aimless posts, that would be of great value. But we can only dream,


ten-million t1_ja2mbyw wrote

I swear all these rants against AI are written by AI and posted as a joke. It's kind of funny for a bit. I would argue with the above premise but it's stupid to argue with AI and whatever happens is, in hindsight, inevitable. AI is not the problem. I would not mind seeing a constant stream of big budget Marvel movies made cheaply with AI. Plus, it's time we face the fact that most of these plaintive singer song writers sound alike.

The problem is climate change, wealth inequality, and racism. AI can not replace hanging out with friends/family, and playing with animals, which is what we have always done.


Naus1987 t1_ja2navv wrote

Consider that the only reason those old things even have value is because someone appreciates that unique quality enough to put their money where their mouth is. Those people will always exist, and will always pay enough to justify hand-crafted items.

There's a reason why every photo in my office is hand-painted or hand-drawn by artists I've met in person. They ain't cheap, but those options do exist.

I think most people just don't care for originality though. Heck, if you look at some of the social movements today, a lot of people can't even think for themselves, and need a politician or a social guru to hand-feed them every thought and idea.

I do think AI and tech will help enable creatives to express themselves even more though. And that it'll be a good thing.


rileyoneill t1_ja2nriv wrote

Technical work gets old really fast. Art really involves tying together many human experiences and how people connect to each other. I think a major issue today is that a lot of contemporary art is over saturated junk. Its much easier for AI to do that. It will be easy to create really good looking things that have little to no meaning.


Gibbonici t1_ja2ns1l wrote

The challenge in the future is going to be supporting everyone whose job has been superceded by technology. AI advancements aren't going to stop at art and artists.

For us to adapt to this new world is going to involve massive shifts in the way our economies work, how we view work ethics and the very concept of a fair days wage for a fair days work. It will involve overturning the ideas of wealth, ambition, motivation, reward, self-worth, heirarchy, identity, etc, etc, etc that underpin the very nature of our societies.

The kicker is that societal and cultural changes like this lag technological progress on a multi-generational scale.


RoosterBrewster t1_ja2o3qw wrote

I could imagine Google or Facebook generating even more targeted ads by creating very individualized text upon the page loading. Or a streaming TV show that can have product placement changed on the fly.


Shot-Job-8841 t1_ja2omq3 wrote

Not to go off topic, but we don’t actually have AI yet. AI is a buzzword that seems to be constantly misused. As far as I am aware, we have some machine learning algorithms.


RoosterBrewster t1_ja2pu23 wrote

Well people are enthused by AI currently because it can create things in fractions of a second. It's like when people were creating images in Photoshop when it came out. I don't think it's viewed as a panacea of "museum-level" art. It will likely be used more as a tool to refine things.

But I imagine there will be a point where it is indistinguishable from human created art. Then how will you value any image then?


genshiryoku t1_ja2pugm wrote

I disagree with this especially due to the popularity of Youtube and Tiktok where everyone has completely different video feeds based on their own interests.

I think the recommendation engine just generating the media you want to watch is the clear next step and something that traditional media can't compete with.

I think you wanting to connect with others over shared media consumption is just a sign of our generation and not shared by Gen Z in the same way.


drekmonger t1_ja2q5vf wrote

Well, of course, there will be something like "holodeck modules" that are meant to be interactive. But also I think there will be more static experiences that you can optionally fiddle with.

Imagine a very dense natural language description of a changing scene that a super advanced AI is rendering in real time.


morrisjr1989 t1_ja2u0cc wrote

I think they’ll keep the term “dynamic content”. Unless there’s specific use case when telling someone everything they’re seeing is AI generated, such as car shopping for best prices, which will probably be “smart” (or derivative )something or just say AI generated.


[deleted] t1_ja2vtf2 wrote

I wish AI could read this entire article for me and I hope this comment is long enough to not get deleted, long gone are the days of a short sharp comment.


Quantius t1_ja2wpzt wrote

Interestingly, I had a *very* short-lived blog in 2014 and I made a post about the value of information approaching zero due to hyperstimulation of communication. I wrote:

>It is because of this that we see the value of information itself
approaching zero. Wait, don’t react just yet! Information still holds
its original value, however, due to its accessibility and in the coming
case of hyperaccessibility you practically don’t even have to pursue it,
it is given to you. That is the role of all these media outlets. The
greatest value add of the future rests in packaging, and disseminating
information, not in the creation of the information.

And what you wrote reminded me of this, and that we're going to see what happened with communication/social media happen to art media. Essentially a spiral of simulacra and simulation and a degree of abandonment of individuality.


Surur t1_ja32j1d wrote

Surely the "someone" is the prompter, who has the intentionality and who directs the process with the content of their prompt, and judges the results, much like any other creative process.

Thank would make the AI art engine a tool, just like a 3D rendering engine is a tool.

Or even more like a photographer who presses a button, produces 100 burst photos and picks the one which conveys his taste and message the best.

Much like a prompter they did not compose the sunset, but they know what they like, and wanted to present it to others.


Emotional-Savings-71 t1_ja358ph wrote

Ai is going to replace art, literature, and literacy the same way mass production and consumerism destroyed craftsmanship and originality... I digress it probably won't be for the worst considering we're becoming a hive mind civilization. Just a bunch of drones proclaiming originality


urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_ja36lxn wrote

is there such thing?

if there is individual isn't mass produced, we have a word for that, "bespoke"

the fact that producing bespoke or even low quantity may became far easier to produce hence able to compete in affordability with mass produced doesn't mean that the objet is "mass produced", it still retain its individuality

I can imagine a future where if the price of manufacturing bespoke thanks to automation goes down automation may allow for local cottage industries serving customers locally

also producing parts for big brands , the brand only dealing with the brand marketing to reach and provide clients, ensure clients request are meet to each particular spec and request as well as as ensuring the QC of the final items produced by the cottages are meet and provide their asociated cottage industries with primary resources

that could help eliminate many of todays far off transport of goods because production being local, allow for manufacturing as needed when needed helping to eliminate overproduction allow for manufacturing to client spec so one person TV, mobile phone or fridge may have different specs or looks than others depending on client request and also may bring local manufacturing comunities


SpinCharm OP t1_ja383qt wrote

I look at it as a new concept - the mass production of distinctiveness. Mass producing individualism.

The very idea strips the person of any real uniqueness. If you are one of countless millions getting something made just for you, by the same company or machine or software, and the other millions are doing the same thing, then just how unique and distinctive are you really going to be? And while it may be individualized, if there really any significant difference between each of those millions?

I think at best, it gives the illusion of individualism. The customer will likely believe, or choose to believe, that theirs is somehow superior. Unique. Tailored. Because in one sense it is. But when you take a step back and look at the larger picture, there’s really nothing unique about any of it.

And that’s where I start feeling disturbed. When millions of people get their validation and affirmations from illusions, then that population is losing control.


Fasobook_HS t1_ja3dj05 wrote

>I think at best, it gives the illusion of individualism
>And that’s where I start feeling disturbed. When millions of people get their validation and affirmations from illusions, then that population is losing control.

This already happens since the first periods of globalization of technology. This was (and is) something that never in the human history occurred. I believe that your thoughts are good and applied over a new wave of changes, but this is happening some time by now. And because it is also a sociological advance, it's effective and the progress scale by giants steps, without having us, humans, the time to process and digest in order to make a smooth transition.

There was another era where the process of evolution in this aspects where more slowly so society even tended to stagnate for a time, seeing the changes as something very VERY different. Nowadays we don't even perceive some aspects because all is too fast, because things can be better in a short period of time, things can be more effective, in all good (personal, individual) and bad (society orchestration) meanings.



awwshitwtf t1_ja3kfoi wrote

I think this brings up an important question, is AI capable of making connections similarly to humans so that it can form new and novel connections that we would describe as creativity? Is a LLM that also has image association that different from the ways we understand and make connections with language?

The way we store word associations is interesting because words that are similar are physically located in similar areas of the brain; car and truck are closely located psychically. Does a computer need the same structures of language association we do to make similar connections, or could it represent something with a different structure to get to a similar functionality? I would say function over form.


TransitoryPhilosophy t1_ja3on3i wrote

I’m not sure I agree with your base premise; if we go back 50 years I don’t think there’s a greater diversity of thought or opinion, because the social circles we move in (in say the 70s) are very local, and our opportunities for discovering new ideas are extremely narrowband and require much more work (limited access to information in the form of newspapers, magazines, tv, or thru travel to different areas). As far as vintage and craftsmanship goes, a “vintage” item in the 70s is more likely to be individually crafted vs mass manufactured, but is still accorded value based on nostalgia or novelty. Mass manufactured items still become vintage because the number of them dwindles as style or technology trends dictate that they should be thrown away or replaced with something new. In many cases those mass manufactured items are still imbued with craftsmanship and design novelty.


321gogo t1_ja3rjow wrote

I’d argue the opposite. 1. TikTok and YouTube are all popular because of the connection with the creator, much more than tv/movies. 2. These are so heavily centered around trends, which is another form of viewer to viewer connection. You feel a part of something bigger still. 3. These are still “social” media - comments and sharing are a huge part of the platform and popularity. 4. Customization takes effort from the viewer which is the opposite direction these platforms are trying to move in. The whole point of TikTok is they got rid of user discovery, lowering the barrier to entry and getting rid of the most common exit journeys for users.


Josh12345_ t1_ja3seez wrote

I think people will turn away from big, mass produced media and look to alternative, small creators.


urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_ja3w6st wrote

if the item is the only blue item then it is unique in that sense, the ability for many manufacturers doing distinctive or one manufacture making many distintive objets doesn't make them less so

also if the distinctive element is chosen by or made to fit the one customer desire or needs its tailored, a company capable of producing efficciently more tailored products faster doesn't make each product not tailored

just making an example up, i.e. an artisan that produce three diferent products for three customers in 3 months without using any machine but he may be able to produce 3 different products for 3 customers in a month with the help of machines, still 3 distinctive products, still done for three diferent customers except faster

unless we are talking that there is real value in possible flaws created by the lack of precision of doing something manual vs machined

imho the confusion steems from the use of "unique", unique doesn't necesarily need to mean better, it just mean the only one with a particular feature or distinctive element, if a customer prefer that over products mass made to be exactly the same is a choice

the real "uniqueness" is something artificialy added to promote desirability and increase value, we had diamonds sold as expensive rarities, of course they aren't, and used to be that the most perfect the rock the most valuable, now we can manufacture better quality diamonds than nature, suddenly natural diamonds are being advertised as "better" for being natural with their "unique natural flaws"

however tailored add value, it can mean something done to one's specs or needs, anyone are going to chose always something that works for them based on their needs or personal choice if they can aford it than something mass manufactured that works ok for most but will never be able to fully meet every individual needs


tempotachyon t1_ja40nl6 wrote

my solemn prayer is that true AI singularity wikl be when androids acquire the most advanced humour system ever. so funny it could be potentially used in warfare to make peace


Pancho507 t1_ja4bsz0 wrote

I used to work customer service and in my experience it was very repetitive so ai could replace it just like technology has done thoughout history. In engineering i see AI being a tool just like computers, maybe it will replace relatively simple and repetitive tasks.


-technocrates- t1_ja4saey wrote

i think you are being overly optimistic that ai will push commonality and banality. if it never becomes conscious, it will likely push what most think is the highest form of arts, which could be almost anything - ie: its not really predictable,

if it does become conscious it will share your concerns in simulation, as well any other point of view it can imagine up, and quickly lose interest in anything we are interested in (bad for us)

i feel like we are talking about the movie idiocracy, and i know its a bit ironic, but what can i say?


Prophayne_ t1_ja4wgua wrote

I have an honest question, why does a sub labeled futurology like to fear monger so many technological advancements? Yall need to rename the sub to preppers or something.

Things are going to change with the rise of ai, I'm choosing to go into it glass half full.


aka_mythos t1_ja4xcsl wrote

AI is only that way if you look at it as something of a monolithic entity. In a world with AI's there will be many AI's each with their own characteristics and identity. From that we'll get the variability in simulated creativity. Instead if you think of AI as a tool, what you have is something that can transform and actualize the simplest and smallest of human creative thoughts and ideas. The least creative and skilled people will be able to see their ideas given form. A person could write a simple poem and see it transformed into the visual, or extrapolated into a full story, or rendered into a movie. If every similarly capable AI were prompted to do the same task, the result would likely be distinct. Yes, AI acting in isolation will make many things even more disposable than they already are, but the individual can be enabled to create works instilled with personal value. Customization and personalization of media is what AI can bring us.


xTopNotch t1_ja51yfp wrote

We already have this today and it's called fan-fiction. But I'm sure once video diffusion models are on the level where you can get realtime edits that AI will extend to those areas as well.


Tomycj t1_ja555z7 wrote

Did mass production really replace craftmanship? Are nowadays less crafters and artisans in the world?

>Most of us live in fairly repetitive, predictable and derivative ways

Wasn't this also true in the past? What was original about laboring the fields? I imagine nowadays we have more diverse lifes in average, than the average man in the past.

>where it becomes increasingly difficult to find original thought or expression of ideas.

is it? Even if you deliberately go look for them in places like libraries and such? Maybe social media simply isn't meant for that.

>We are, statistically speaking, mostly repetition

That's an interesting debate. Yours is an uncommon position in this sub, because instead of arguing that AI art is unoriginal, you seem to be arguing that humans themselves are as unoriginal as AI. I think people does more than copy-pasting. I think they are able to come up with new ideas by looking at old ones, otherwise society wouldn't have evolved. AIs might be less capable of truly original ideas, but I think they eventually will, and that they do not need to reach that point in order to be extremely useful and produce beautiful images or stories, be them art or not.

>While today we can appreciate and value the effort and creativity of a music artist, very soon more and more music will be synthesized, and in doing so we will value it less

If you think people will actually give less value to machine generated stuff, wouldn't that maintain or even increase a demand for human-made stuff, therefore keeping that activity safe? Yeah, I think that's what you're saying later.

>There will be fewer human artists and craftsmen if there are fewer ways to earn a living

It might be harder to make a living out of art, but that doesn't necessarily mean artists will become more scarse. Maybe more will be able to do it as a hobbie.


Tomycj t1_ja56h9j wrote

Freedom of choice doesn't mean what you think it means. It all comes down to this: you are not entitled to other people's work. Capitalism is in big part the recognition of this hard to swallow but true and ethical principle, that enables peaceful social cooperation.

It's ironic that these anti-capitalist ideas are often rooted in marxism, yet they are contradicting it, because marxism predicted that capitalism would collapse due to decreasing profits, but people are complaining about their increase.

>AI and Capitalism are NOT compatible

you could make the same argument for any form of technological progress. People has done so, and will continue doing so.

edit: the user argued later that his point is true because the capitalist doesn't do any work. That is basically economics terraplanism. No serious economist denies the fact the capitalist is just another link in the chain, who provides useful contributions in the production process. They, among other things, allow the employee to not have to worry about a series of decisions, risks, and responsibilities.


iHaveABigDiscoStick t1_ja57pnk wrote

I would read all of this if you were some important person in the field of AI but discourse like this among “lesser” individuals such as ourselves will do absolutely nothing to shape the future and I’ve heard every single take under the sun where AI is concerned. The issue isn’t AI, it’s much much larger than that. The distractions, the confusion, warmongering, whether orchestrated or not that is what matters. And this AI that we speak of not being true AI by any means is a minuscule part of all of that—namely just a way to further spread confusion.


Mindless_Button_9378 t1_ja5jjeb wrote

As a person that paints, draws a plays 7 instruments I feel like I might have value some day.


CausalDiamond t1_ja5plxy wrote

We need to live as pataphysically as possible in response.


nobodyisonething t1_ja61mpt wrote

The future will be MUCH MORE individualized than anything anyone has ever experienced in human history.

In the near future the movies you watch will be MOVIES MADE FOR YOU. The podcasts you listen to will be generated real-time for you just like you want to hear them. Your music will be the only music you care to listen to. And it will be generated fresh every day, like bread from the baker.

The echo chambers of today will seem like quaint children's tree-house forts in retrospect just a few years from now.


Northstar1989 t1_ja65ujg wrote

> all comes down to this: you are not entitled to other people's work. Capitalism is in big part the recognition of this hard to swallow but true and ethical principle,

That's utter BS.

Capitalism is literally about the owners of Capital reaping returns for investments without doing any work.

It is the very opposite of what you are saying.

Leave it to a Neoliberal to try and turn reality on its head. You are answering in bad faith, and being blocked.


Orc_ t1_ja6hadn wrote

That's one of the things that weirds me out the most.

There will be less "in common" in regards to people and media because everybody will be watching things catered to them.


NowIbeezDatBlock t1_ja6hnku wrote

Idk man. The capitalist regime will end up eating itself—isn’t it odd how apple uses Amazon cloud for iCloud and apple jabs Facebook by giving the option to bar apps from tracking usage across different platforms—and google runs the entire operating systems of the android hardware-software systems, which Microsoft could’ve done but the Justice Department wanted to have a dick measuring contest over Windows 95. We could’ve had apple vs. windows vs. android in a cage match of smart phone superiority but nooooo. The same Justice Department who let Bill Clinton testify in his own defense wanted to help us from being exploited by WINDOWS 95! Thanks so much Justice Department.