Say AI is very expensive and costs a lot. What happens when no one can or is not willing to actually do the work manually?

What if companies both don't see a large return on investment, and at the same time can't reduce their AI spend?

What do you think plaid is doing?

OpenAI is just a new-ish player.

Palo Alto's power is city owned as well. I think we're building out fiber too.

Public infrastructure shouldn't be private. Imagine the nightmare of privately owned roads and highways.

I've never really understood this kind of sneer comment.

The amount of unfunny reddit snark in this thread is embarrassing.

If the AI does it for you, you need to still learn what to do.

What is the "it" that AI does for you?

This is assuming you know how to get good work out of AI in the first place. But even that is turning out to be a skill in and of itself.

Their point is that market forces push the value down to the marginal cost of copying.

This complaint about "determining" versus "assigning" value is not important. And copyright does follow execution, not the abstract idea.

Listening is no longer profitable. Artists cannot sell listening. What they can sell are live performances.

Digital music just becomes marketing for live performances.

It's fun to see the false idea that intelligence and thinking are what make humans human begin to collapse in real time. It's one of those structural pillars of human identity invented by some philosophers too lost in their own grandiosity from quite some time ago that we've all mistaken it for gospel. That notion was false to begin with, but I think a lot of us forgot that. So it'll be interesting to watch how that invented part of "being human" is eroded away, or rather is going through a revolution.

The reality is that being human stands independent of that idea.

Thoughts and ideas of course will continue to be the domain of humans, but as curators/extending our intellectual creativity beyond just the mere craft of writing. So even that story, that humans are thinking beings, will continue on for the foreseeable future.

>It's fun to see the false idea that intelligence and thinking are what makes humans human begin to collapse in real time.

As soon as LLMs start thinking please let us know!

If they weren't producing things that are indistinguishable from human produced products people wouldn't be against them.

On the contrary the reason people are against them is that the things produced are distinguishable from human created products. E.g. pushback against "slopification."

The pushback against "slopification" is an ad hoc justification that is nebulous and vague enough for people to use to feel superior about their opinions and ideas, but has no genuine grounding.

But even if we consider the slopification argument, don't factories produce slop as well? Fast fashion is notorious for producing slop. But at the same time factories also produce are cars, shovels, housing, screws, etc. are they "slop"? How about computers? And other advanced manufacturing? Still slop?

Even if we consider the slopification argument, it isn't strong enough.

The use of AI to produce slop is a non-argument. On the same level of argument that an open internet would produce scams, proliferation of pornography, and gross commercialization/ads. All true, but still a lot of new value was unlocked from n order effects.

Your comment is too dismissive for me to bother responding more than this.

Your entire point stands on being dismissive of an entire emerging industry. An emerging industry that has the fastest adoption rates, the fastest growth rate, and where millions of people using it on a daily basis.

YOU need to provide the evidence for your truly absurd claims.

In order for you to be right everyone else needs to be wrong.

The capital markets, the investors, the companies, the hundreds of millions of people using it on daily basis, they ALL need to be wrong.

"were usually violent hate speech"

Did we forget "Vote blue no matter who"???

It was often as mundane as disagreeing with ANY democrat politician/their policies.

Sometimes it wasn't even a right-wing voice, but from more Left leaning voices that got banned/ostracized.

Industrial loom cloth is far inferior to artisan made cloth. And yet you'd be dooming all future generations to poverty if you stuck with artisanal cloth production.

Here’s everyone’s daily reminder that the Luddites were an anti-exploitation movement that were retconned into knuckle dragging technophobes by Capitalist propaganda. It is, was, and always will be, about the fair distribution of returns from productivity gains.

>It is, was, and always will be, about the fair distribution of returns from productivity gains.

I think we can agree with this. The system that determines the fair distribution of productivity gains today will have to change entirely.

> Would you rather feel justified in the knowledge that the Luddites were principally right and resist, or would you rather learn the lesson of their fate and adapt?

Keep your poison. If everyone adapted this way, we would not have worker rights, and our children would still work in mines and factories for pennies.

Where the commenter is right is that luddites didn't have (or had they?) a global competitor more than happy to push their entire system aside. Not that they personally thought about this argument, just that the context and possible consequences were different.