Actually, if you really think about it, if you’re an uber-wealthy CEO, automation is augmentation. Augmentation is defined as doing something that you couldn’t do by yourself. If you’re a business leader automating labor, you now have the capability of producing more value for less cost. Erik’s article is less about automation and augmentation being on two different sides and more about who gets to be augmented in the first place.
I’m really glad you cited Erik’s article, it was a really well written read.
I feel like your example of artisanal markets and art is interesting but not comparable to Erik’s argument. If jobs are automated so heavily that the majority of people who aren’t included in the technological elite don’t have access to wealth or a chance to get it, these artisanal markets may exist, but from who and for who?
Secondly, I think your argument about soulless vs real art is interesting on its own. Speaking from a perspective of having a small glimpse inside the entertainment industry, many creative and genre defying studios rely on an artistic pipeline that from an outside perspective is incredibly automated. Yet this automated structure doesn’t prevent studios from creating works that have never been done before, it makes it possible, because creating original content doesn’t get created in a vacuum. It gets created with a strong production structure and resources/talent working in a professional “corporate” synchronization. Yes, indie content exists, but that’s a conversation in itself though.
I wasn't truly arguing against him insomuch as his article was an inspiration for how augmentation and automation might coexist. I fully agree with Erik that considering how capital/profits are distributed with the rise of AI is a pressing problem that is bound to lead to greater inequality if we don't find a way to deal with it.
I'd love to hear more about how art is "from an outside perspective is incredibly automated" since I myself have never had that experience! I'm not surprised that this is true though since automation at any level free up higher order thinking (ex. how you can program without ever learning how a CPU works).
This is definitely a take, but I respectfully disagree; using AI to replace the things we do now won’t give us more time, but will instead cause people to be squeezed even tighter. Corporations will expect people to do things even faster if they have the help of AI, and the more that corporations can expect people to do, the more they’ll require.
Alternatively, it’ll replace many jobs altogether, leaving people with plenty of time to do art... and no money to pay for it. Either way, not a win.
Given how our markets are set up, I fully agree that AI replacing jobs only puts more pressure on humans to do more at a faster pace. That being said, this was more of a speculation that automation *could* allow for art to flourish, but that'd certainly require a complete restructuring of how we live our lives.
It is an optimistic speculation, but I do hope that it's able to happen that way. It'd be very cool if AI actually gave us the time and freedom it's supposed to be giving us!
Actually, if you really think about it, if you’re an uber-wealthy CEO, automation is augmentation. Augmentation is defined as doing something that you couldn’t do by yourself. If you’re a business leader automating labor, you now have the capability of producing more value for less cost. Erik’s article is less about automation and augmentation being on two different sides and more about who gets to be augmented in the first place.
I’m really glad you cited Erik’s article, it was a really well written read.
I feel like your example of artisanal markets and art is interesting but not comparable to Erik’s argument. If jobs are automated so heavily that the majority of people who aren’t included in the technological elite don’t have access to wealth or a chance to get it, these artisanal markets may exist, but from who and for who?
Secondly, I think your argument about soulless vs real art is interesting on its own. Speaking from a perspective of having a small glimpse inside the entertainment industry, many creative and genre defying studios rely on an artistic pipeline that from an outside perspective is incredibly automated. Yet this automated structure doesn’t prevent studios from creating works that have never been done before, it makes it possible, because creating original content doesn’t get created in a vacuum. It gets created with a strong production structure and resources/talent working in a professional “corporate” synchronization. Yes, indie content exists, but that’s a conversation in itself though.
I wasn't truly arguing against him insomuch as his article was an inspiration for how augmentation and automation might coexist. I fully agree with Erik that considering how capital/profits are distributed with the rise of AI is a pressing problem that is bound to lead to greater inequality if we don't find a way to deal with it.
I'd love to hear more about how art is "from an outside perspective is incredibly automated" since I myself have never had that experience! I'm not surprised that this is true though since automation at any level free up higher order thinking (ex. how you can program without ever learning how a CPU works).
This is definitely a take, but I respectfully disagree; using AI to replace the things we do now won’t give us more time, but will instead cause people to be squeezed even tighter. Corporations will expect people to do things even faster if they have the help of AI, and the more that corporations can expect people to do, the more they’ll require.
Alternatively, it’ll replace many jobs altogether, leaving people with plenty of time to do art... and no money to pay for it. Either way, not a win.
Given how our markets are set up, I fully agree that AI replacing jobs only puts more pressure on humans to do more at a faster pace. That being said, this was more of a speculation that automation *could* allow for art to flourish, but that'd certainly require a complete restructuring of how we live our lives.
It is an optimistic speculation, but I do hope that it's able to happen that way. It'd be very cool if AI actually gave us the time and freedom it's supposed to be giving us!