If you're familiar with the Rick and Morty "what is my purpose" meme ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa9MpLXuLs0 ), it will essentially be the same for humanity in the future.
that is technical minutia that will improve before artists relying on that hurdle saving their job have time to sign up for the dole
don't get me wrong, I have sympathy for everybody who for whatever reason sees their livelihood endangered overnight through no fault of their own and with little time to adapt
but I perceive a lot of denial:
- denial that "it could not/would not happen to me"
- denial that this rate of change is not rather unprecedented, "it was always thus" kind of denial
- denial that just because a certain niche won't be quickly automated, it follows that this job is safe or that a general reshaping of that general industry won't happen, changing the incentive structure massively
- denial that a second order effects may get you; so you can now automate some expensive part of your process? that also means the barrier of entry for the competition is lower and whatever competitive advantage you had in that process is now gone. Sure, embrace the efficiency but keep adapting because the only thing sure after those changes is that your industry will experience some "creative destruction"
How do you know it won’t? I don’t mean to sound like a doomer , but I never see evidence for these claims around “AI not ever being creative like a human!”
These AI’s are literally trained on all of human creativity… i struggle to see how there’s any indication AI would fail to be as creative as a human in even the near-ish future.
They aren’t trained on all of human creativity. Most of human communication is verbal, and that still isn’t captured. I am not saying whether it will have much difference, just that your statement is factually wrong.
I used “all” instead of “most”, which is indeed inaccurate. A better response would have been “a collection of humanity’s creativity”.
However, you fail to recognize that OpenAI also created Whisper, which is a quote capable speech-to-text transcriber; and this tool easily converts audio and video (those verbal bits you mentioned) into text.
So the pool of creativity which OpenAI can train its models on is far larger than just original text; further, they demoed image modality a couple weeks back which would allow for VISUAL creative works to be parsed as well.
I understand your points, but what I wanted to highlight was something slightly different: verbal communication and dialogs should still consists of magnitude more human conversation than text, or presentation, or basically anything digital.
It's simpler even: there are conversations that are straight up never happen in writings. So by training only on written text, you will never got those conversations. For example: teacher - student conversation where one side is confused and need to be explained, or many kind of debates and discussions where there is no end conclusion.
Basically, pick a random human from the street and they would be talking and listening a lot more than they would be writing. Those talking and listening is never going to be captured by any digital system.
It might end up that written text has enough similarity with verbal communication that it doesn't matter anyway. But that's hard to guess as a priori that it would be the case.
Quite the opposite. AI will be better at learning "what surprises" humans than humans because it won't be filtered by a human going "oh, that wouldn't surprise me" (because you just thought of it, idiot). Now imagine a million, a billion "banksy" "surprise" pieces. This is the future.
And the future is now, of course, because there are tons of such artists and the value comes only from the elite who ascribe value and not some inherent value of the thing itself. Things are important ("worth money") because tasteless fucks with money say they are worth money. Go watch "The Menu". Ralph Fiennes face cooking the last meal says it all.
