Dry_Substance_9021 t1_jcgpzqn wrote

There's a case to be made that AI could help us eliminate many of the problems we face today regarding meeting basic human needs. AI could help automate processes that reduce the costs of producing food, shelter, medicine and education to next to nothing. AI could be used to actually improve our wellbeing. AI and the easing of human suffering aren't inherently mutually exclusive.

But based on the fact that it's corporations and intelligence agencies who are pursuing AI, I very much doubt we'll get this new nirvana. It remains to be seen, of course, but it would seem highly unlikely that their aims are anything but to maintain the status quo.


Dry_Substance_9021 t1_j6oe3a3 wrote

I mean, by OP's logic, you should never ask anyone for any objective facts. Every human being on the planet has some kind of bias. intentional or not.

AI is ever-developing. At this stage, the risk of consequential bias is indeed pretty high. Over time, though, I expect this to diminish dramatically to the level of inconsequence.


Dry_Substance_9021 t1_j5uxa31 wrote

Human-made art will survive. Painters experienced a similar existential crisis with the rise of photography, because up until that time, most were employed to depict realism, but couldn't match the output of the camera.

Then artists invented whole new ways of filling the canvas. Photography is still relevant, and has even become an artform itself.

While AI-generated imagery is fascinating, it still takes a human to provide input to assemble that image. Hell, it took human-generated art to train the AI, and likely this will continue. We're just going to be in an adjustment period while this all shakes out. It will likely be the case that not as many humans can make a career out of being an Artist, but the discipline isn't going away.