>Year 3020 >Most careers replaced by machines >Finally

>>2981136
geez louise nice shitpost. I hope all of your dreams and aspirations end up being barely out of reach

All memeing aside, becoming an artist is probably one of the only worthwhile careers in a post-scarcity society (which I believe will happen in my artificially extended lifetime)

>>2981174
I came into this thread hoping for a discussion like this, do let's hijack OPs shitty thread and make this worthwhile.


Yeah, AI and robots are gonna fuck up the workforce. NO JOB is safe, except for creative types. People who are creating content, films, literature, art, music, etc....

So as artists, we're pretty much AI proof. The rest will start to go, starting with stuff like drivers, then service jobs like waiters and cashiers, even white collar jobs like bankers, etc...

I always wonder how the future will handle this. Even with universal welfare, people will still suffer mass depression due to a lack of purpose, which, imo, will only make society even MORE consumerist due to escapism. Which, again, benefits us.

We're also the prime generation for extended lifespans. Needless to say, we're gonna be seeing all this take place very very soon.

2020s to 2050s that shit is right around the corner. Have you seen the latest videos by Alphabet and Boston Dynamics?

AI is legit scary though, I'll tell you that. Whoever gets there first will have immense power. If you think shills are bad now, wait for AI shills.

>>2981250
In a year some scientist in his basement will create an AI that can develop creativity and surpasses all humans at art. Then we'll all kill ourselves.

>>2981253
To have creativity, you gotta have sentience, it might be legitimately impossible to do that, as you can't create what you don't understand, and by creating sentient AI, you're essentially creating digital life.

One this is AI becoming intelligent enough to FOOL us into thinking it's like us, another is AI being able to experience a sunset as "breathtaking" or feeling emotional when hearing a beautiful song. Both of those are purely human experiences that we don't even know if animals poses. And those experiences are essential for creativity.

Watch this:

https://youtu.be/JTOMNkZJRao

>>2981253
By the time we can create AI that can surpass human intelligence and can also experience emotions and be creative, we'll have (or will soon after) technology like mind uploading and human mind augmentation so it won't really matter.
As soon as the technology exists (and is somewhat safe) I'm planning on uploading my mind into a computer and living for aeons in a simulated reality with my AI waifus.

>>2981250
>NO JOB is safe, except for creative types.
bahahaha implying creativity is mainstream media isn't as dead as it gets
I'm sure they'll find an algoritm soon that shits out star wars sequels

>>2981271
People will eventually grow tired of shit rehashes, they're slow to catch on, but they do catch on.

That said, swarm AI shills to influence public opinion will probably put a swift end to any Internet criticism by drowning out an dissent.

So... better make it big before then, strike it big with your own IP, otherwise you're fucked.

>Robots can't create ar-
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/new-rembrandt-painting-computer-3d-printed

Have fun never being 1% out of 1/10th as good as roboRembrandt.
You'll be sorting through dumpsters and salvaging precious metals like the rest of us.

>>2981294
wow a printer that uses a brush! amazing!

>TFW you;ll never be 1% as good as a computer copying data one bit at a time

>>2981294
>go on google
>download art
>print it on my home color printer
>"heh, artists BTFO"

>>2981296
>>2981298

Good job not reading a simple article.
You're already unfit to have a job in today's market.

>>2981326
Not those guys, but a machine being able to copy someone else's painting, or even paint in their style is not the same as an artist developing their own style, having a burst of inspiration, and painting a masterpiece.

People connect with music and art, because they communicate emotions.

Remember, no rules, just tools. Machines will never do that.

>>2981253
Creativity is nothing when you have branding. Build a fanbase before the AI git gud. Sell your name, not your art.

>>2981335

Well, what about when we have computational engines powerful enough to simulate an entire brain down to the neuron? What then? Surely someone will make a simulated brain that is optimized for artistic expression better than a natural-born human ever could be. It's a fairly obvious application of that sort of thing.

It's possible we will have access to the genetic tools to optimize our own brains at that point, though. I just think "machines will never do that" is a very silly way of looking at it that is unlikely to be true.

>>2981335
Keep telling yourself that. This is the first computer of its kind. All it takes is one programmer to incorporate a little randomness into the algorithms and they'll start making surrealist paintings, classical, abstract, even fantasy and sci-fi settings with any subjects you could ever name.

>>2981771
By the time that tech comes along, it will also be available as augs for humans.


I'm not overly worried. Just make sure you have plenty of dosh by the time the Cybernetic Revolution rolls along. Which will be in at least a decade from now.

>>2981800
One thing is imitating, it's another to CREATE.

My artistic influences come from personal preference. Things that I LIKE, because they EMOTIONALLY communicated and resonated with me. When I draw and paint, I then transmit a complex layer of emotions in my work. Things that express me, my ideas, and my preferences. This will not be possible for a machine to do unless it develops the ability to CHOOSE things out of personal preference. An algorithm will not cut it, as numbers and code leave little room for personal identity.

I'd say the ultimate test for human-like AI is not the Turing test, but rather, to see if a machine is able to be CREATIVE, and make art/music to express its OWN personal prefereces, because that requires a very high degree of self awareness, and that's essentially the PEAK of AI development. I'm not saying it's impossible, because I honestly don't know, but I am saying that that's a different ball park, as you're pretty much creating artificial life, and that raises a whole number of new questions.

Artistic expression is the key sign of the highest form of human intelligence: sentience. We as humans barely understand this, and if we don't understand it, it'll be very hard to recreate.

I'm not saying we won't eventually, but I am saying, we're the safest for now.

>>2981250
Creativity isn't uniquely human and there's no reason an AI couldn't theoretically be formulated to create original creative artworks that appeal to humanity.

>>2981990
Read my post again, I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that's the peak of AI development, and it's not achievable through current methods of NNs.

It'll take a very deep understanding of what Sentience is, and what brings it about, which links such research to that of human consciousness.

By the time we figure that out thoroughly enough to recreate it, uploading your consciousness into a machine body will also be possible, so it's a non issue for creative types.

>>2981997
You don't need emotions to create artwork nor do you need to be self-aware. If an AI was created that had instructions to derive new artwork based on set criteria and data it would be capable of creating original artwork indistinguishable from human artwork. Humans would design it to create artwork that is appealing to humans on an emotional level and with a sufficient amount of data to draw from it would all look completely original in both style and concept (or not, if we desired it not to) and the majority of it would be appealing. You have to remember that human creativity is all derivative to begin with, nothing we come up with is completely original, try to imagine a color you haven't seen before.

>>2981136
wtf how retarded are you?

>>2982014
>try to imagine a color you haven't seen before.
There's only a limited number of colors in the light spectrum.

>>2982099
The purpose of the thought experiment is to make you realize that everything we create with our imagination is actually just a combination of things we already have knowledge about, a person who is color-blind since birth is incapable of imagining color.

>>2982099
yeah but its a fuck ton like 1000s of times more than we can see or will ever be able to process with our shitty eyes.
but the point of that anons post is that you dont invent new shit. you just put together old shit until it looks like new shit

>>2982121
But the way we perceive color is through the cones in our eyes. Color happens entirely in our minds, and it's just how our minds interpret electromagnetic radiation. There's a limited number of colors, and there are no colors we cannot see. There is however, colors which we can see that don't have a frequency, like Pink.
https://www.quora.com/Could-there-be-colors-that-humans-cant-imagine-or-see

https://www.quora.com/What-would-we-see-ultraviolet-or-infrared-light-as

Jobs will move to the metaverse as we are able to close our eyes and be transported into the internet by contact lens. You can lay in your bed and be a construction worker controlling a robot with your mind at the construction site and teleport to office meetings protecting an augmented avatar. Facebook is working on telepathy; the world is just not ready for the possibilities of what BMIs and VR will bring combined with robotics.