Business doesn’t hate creatives, and is not specifically targeting creatives to automate them away. Any job that can be done as good for a lower price or better for the same price is going to be a target.

And let's be honest, the reason it can be done for a lower price is because the public doesn't have taste.

The stage has been set with the mass proliferation "lofi" and "chill" music that has been all but AI automated.

Put another way, they hate costs, and all of us are costs :)

Whats the end game here?

Let’s follow the AI and automation craze to its eventual conclusion - automations everywhere, humans are either employed in automation industry, or are unemployed at a massive scale.

Stable jobs are replaced by ever-optimized gig economy for some, and chronic poverty for others. For there to even be economy - the massive underemployed population subsists on government welfare.

Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it. Those cashiers, toll booth, and warehouse workers did not find themselves in much more lucrative careers - I don’t see why it will be any different for truck and cab drivers who will be joining them in the near future.

If you see a future where these people who suddenly found all this extra leisure time o. Their hands and no income - are somehow blossoming in creative directions and realizing their own potential - I’d like to have it painted for me, as it all looks pretty bleak to me. Just not quiet sure of the timeline.

Best I can come up with is an emergence of some kind of counter-cultural protest market where people buy and sell “made by humans” products, and are continuously attacked by various regulations originating from mega corporations who captured the government.

> Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it.

Empirically, that's not true.

Unemployment was at an all-time low after most of those jobs were eliminated, and wages after adjusting for inflation continued to rise in real terms.

I am inclined to doubt the sources of these empirical observations. Statistics are funny like that, “average patient temperature in the hospital” effect and frequent inability to correctly attribute confounding factors outside of observed window.

Equally bad is anecdotal evidence, but I’ll drop some anyway. For a while now I am observing a crisis thats, admittedly subjectively, easy to see - but is somehow absent in those empirical sources citing economic accomplishments. An indirect evidence of what I am talking about - is crushing defeat of democrats/establishment in last election, following among other reasons, quite a backlash for boasting about said accomplishments.

But rather than picking issue with one of my points - I still would like someone to describe the counterpoint to my dystopian expectations - where, for example, would all those professional drivers I mentioned earlier go?

Ps. Oh speaking of statistics - remember Greenspan’s “there’s no real estate bubble, there’s froth in individual markets” right before 2008 financial crisis? It be funny like that, sometimes much derided common sense is all you need /shrug.

> where, for example, would all those professional drivers I mentioned earlier go?

Wherever all the cashiers, toll booth operators, and farmers went after automation took their jobs.

New jobs are created, the people displaced have to migrate to them.

Is it fun for them? No.

Is it how the world works? Yes.

Technology thus far has a VERY VERY long and established role of creating more jobs than it eliminates.

See >95% of the population being employed in agriculture for tens of thousands of years and being reduced to about 5% over the course of 100 years (and civilization being FAR FAR better off for it).

Will that trend one day end? Probably.

Will it be doomsday for the plebs? Who knows.

Is it happening within a timeframe worth worrying about? Unlikely.

That's right, they don't just hate creatives. They'll go after anyone.

I wonder what the hyper-capitalist's end game looks like. One giant company that covers everything with one man sitting at a dashboard, tweaking parameters? Is that one man even necessary?

I wonder what our plans are for when "the economy" prefers to do it's thing without us. Writing poems all day? What capitalist instrument will provide "money" for us to spend in this giant machine?

I don't think its at all extremist to look at that picture, realize it won't really have made any sense for the majority of the people on the planet well before it gets to that point, and that consequently some type of major global revolution will prevent that from happening.

> One giant company that covers everything with one man sitting at a dashboard, tweaking parameters? Is that one man even necessary?

Old joke about airplane automation:

In the future there will be just one pilot and a dog in the cockpit. The dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.

There’s only one way to win in a game theory world and that’s to be on top at the end.

So where is it going? Why: the end.

But this is also where Gandolf says, “end?”

Yes, this has always been the case. This is why capital holders are actively hostile to labor organizing and tend to back fascism when liberalism falls into crisis.

They don't hate at all. They are just maximising profit (which they have an obligation to do). If they didn't replace you with more efficient things, they would be outcompeted and die.

So, feel free to criticise capitalism and how inhumane it is, but don't anthropomorphise it by ascribing human emotions to the system.

whatever can be automated isn't "true" creativity. these models merely generate an average music, but the outputs of creative musicians always stand out.

That's why corporations that have made creative products have traditionally never gone anywhere. They all just went out of business. And all the artists got rich.

?? How do you think what you say follows from what I said?

You don’t understand how the ‘bonkers’ cost of creative worker relates to businesses that make creative products?

No, I only understand that you're doing your best to be hostile and strawman me. So please, do kindly explain.

I’ll get right on that

Any progress?