Kobolds with a keyboard.

  • 7 Posts
  • 1.24K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle





  • Here’s the thing that I think a lot of people don’t understand about home ownership: Housing prices going up is only beneficial if you plan to sell.

    We were (very) lucky and were able to get in on the tail end of the early 2010s housing crisis and leverage the first-time homebuyer incentives that were offered at the time to buy a modest house. It cost $245k. It’s currently worth $550k, and people seem to think this means we made $300k in profit! Yay us! And technically, on paper, sure, we did, but in reality, no.

    Housing prices across the board are up, and we still need a place to live, so if we sold this place, we’d have to buy something else (at the same grossly inflated prices), or we’d have to rent (at grossly inflated prices). If the $550k this place is worth on paper buys us something that would have cost $245k in 2010, we haven’t gained anything.

    Either way, we have no intention of selling, so we will never see a cent of that increased value. What we are seeing, however, is increased property taxes since the property has, on paper, doubled in value.

    What I’m getting at is, this doesn’t benefit homeowners, it benefits housing investors, who are the group Trump really wants to prop up.










  • and privatised

    Completely agree with you here. If the technology was being developed and made available to everyone for non-commercial use, while they charged for the commercial use cases, I’d have less of an issue with it (aside from the obvious and serious objection that they’re functionally stealing creatives’ work and profiting off of it - but again, I think this objection could be invalidated with UBI.)


  • I’m going to play devil’s advocate and present a hypothetical alternative here…

    Visual art is not about portraying something in such or such specific manner (be it realism, surrealism, or whatever else) it is about sharing an experience (which no AI can do, as it doesn’t live and can’t experience shit by itself) and it is about sharing an emotion that can be ranging from the pure emotional one to the most cerebral.

    AI art is boring.

    I’d argue that in some applications, this is fine. For example, corporate logos, the equivalent of clip art in presentations, etc. You can argue that that isn’t really ‘art’ in the sense that you’re describing it, but whatever you want to call it, personally, I don’t care if no artist has to do that BS. I highly doubt many artists really want to be doing that stuff. The problem isn’t that AI is being used to generate soulless art for soulless projects, it’s that it’s taking work away from real artists (and that we as modern humans, as a whole, put so much weight on employment).

    If we gave UBI to creatives that covered all of their expenses and let them pursue whatever projects they wanted to work on (and thereby we still, as a species, got to enjoy the actual art by actual artists), would it be so bad that the shitty work is being done by a computer? Theoretically there’d be more ‘real’ art, since artists wouldn’t have to waste their time on the bullshit. Let’s go back to a system of patronage, where society as a whole become the patrons.