• OfCourseNot@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    So now all Lemmy is on board with this AI. Why is acceptable for technology to take the jobs of plumbers (usually poorer) but it’s evil for it to take the job of ‘artists’ (usually rich)???

    • aleq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      ‘artists’ (usually rich)

      I know think you’re trolling, but…

      • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not trolling at all. I used to hang around an art school when I was a teenager, the vast majority of those kids came from pretty well off families. The small percentage that were of a more working class background were there to get into graphic design or the-like in college, so they didn’t end up being artists.

        A quick web search gives that only 8% of artists are working class in the UK which is a wealthy country, I’d bet the percentage goes down in poorer ones.

      • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Generative ai is also machine learning, and you could say that the ai is generating movements and actions for the drone. My question, that was not about the underlying technology or semantics, still stands.

      • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        In which world they aren’t? Like if you have the option of working throwing paint onto a pice of cloth or taping bananas to walls would you chose to work with literal human shit to your knees and your elbows??

        Also see my other comment, only 8% of artist (in the UK) are working class against A FUCKING 100% plumbers being working class.