im-so-stupid-lol

im-so-stupid-lol OP t1_j6jto1q wrote

yeah certainly the data has to be transferred somehow, the machine cannot read your mind, but I think being able to have a "conversation" effectively with the algorithm will go a long way. for example:

"portrait of woman, age 25, beautiful face"

"okay, face is good but make the photo more realistic and less artsy, and have her wearing a black turtle neck"

"okay, now let's work on the background, make it lighter and blurred slightly"

et cetera

1

im-so-stupid-lol t1_j6j3h15 wrote

> if this 'automation' bothers people they should be pushing for Universal Basic Services (UBS).

respectfully I think people's fears are a little more nuanced than that. obviously if AI is going to make most work that people do today unnecessary, we should distribute those benefits to not just shareholders but also stakeholders which will be every member of society.

however, I think people in general lack trust in such systems. who will control that system of benefit distribution (distributing food, currency, etc) -- the government? private companies?

I think people are disturbed by the fact that, up until this AI revolution, one's economic value is inherent because they can perform labor that there is demand for, and so ultimately the people, the workers, have a lot of leverage and can exert influence on the system, because they are needed. whereas, after this AI revolution, assuming we are talking about HLMI -- meaning that basically any task is better done by a machine than a person -- the worker now has no leverage in the economic system and is fully at the mercy of whoever controls the system. whether that is a governing body or a corporation is kind of irrelevant, it's an uncomfortable situation to be in.

0