Even if the diamond mine owners stop mining, it’s unethical to buy their stockpile of blood diamonds.
Also, there is a cost besides electricity - the theft of artist’s work is inherent to the use of the model, not just in the training. The artist is not being compensated whenever an AI generates art in their style, and they may in fact lose their job or have their compensation reduced due to artificial supply.
Finally, this is an analogy, it’s not perfect. Picking apart incidental parts of the analogy doesn’t really prove anything. Use an analogy to explain a problem, but don’t pick apart an analogy as though you’re picking apart the problem.
and they may in fact lose their job or have their compensation reduced due to artificial supply.
highly doubt. Any artists that do lose their job are probably mostly ok with it anyway, since it’s most likely going to be graphical drivel anyway. In fields like media theres a different argument to be made, but even then it’s iffy sometimes. Also i don’t think this would be considered artificial supply, it would be artificially insisted demand instead no? Or perhaps an inelastic demand side expectation.
Although, it would be nice to have some actual concrete data on artists and job prospects in relation to AI. Unfortunately it’s probably too early to tell right now, since we’re just out of the Luddite reactionary phase, who knows.
Any artists that do lose their job are probably mostly ok with it anyway, since it’s most likely going to be graphical drivel anyway.
Replace “artist” and “graphical”, and you just described most jobs. I don’t think most people are ok losing their jobs even if those jobs aren’t especially inherently rewarding; they’re getting paid for their area of training. They’re not just gonna be able to find a new job because in this hypothetical, the demand for it (a living human doing the work) is gone.
I consider this an increase in supply because it’s an increase in the potential supply. Productivity increases (which is what this is) mean you can make more, which drives down the price, which means that artists get paid less (or just get replaced).
Remember: if you 10x the productivity of an employee, that typically doesn’t mean you produce 10x the product, it typically means you need 1/10th the employees. That payroll saving goes right into the pockets of execs.
Also wrt luddites, they weren’t wrong. It did absolutely demolish their industry and devastate the workers. It’s just that the textile industry was only a small part of the economy, and there were other industries who could absorb the displaced workers after they got retrained.
LLMs threaten almost every industry, so there is a greater worker impact and fewer places for displaced workers to go. Also now workers are responsible for bearing the costs of their own retraining, unlike back in the day of the luddites.
Even if the diamond mine owners stop mining, it’s unethical to buy their stockpile of blood diamonds.
Also, there is a cost besides electricity - the theft of artist’s work is inherent to the use of the model, not just in the training. The artist is not being compensated whenever an AI generates art in their style, and they may in fact lose their job or have their compensation reduced due to artificial supply.
Finally, this is an analogy, it’s not perfect. Picking apart incidental parts of the analogy doesn’t really prove anything. Use an analogy to explain a problem, but don’t pick apart an analogy as though you’re picking apart the problem.
highly doubt. Any artists that do lose their job are probably mostly ok with it anyway, since it’s most likely going to be graphical drivel anyway. In fields like media theres a different argument to be made, but even then it’s iffy sometimes. Also i don’t think this would be considered artificial supply, it would be artificially insisted demand instead no? Or perhaps an inelastic demand side expectation.
Although, it would be nice to have some actual concrete data on artists and job prospects in relation to AI. Unfortunately it’s probably too early to tell right now, since we’re just out of the Luddite reactionary phase, who knows.
Replace “artist” and “graphical”, and you just described most jobs. I don’t think most people are ok losing their jobs even if those jobs aren’t especially inherently rewarding; they’re getting paid for their area of training. They’re not just gonna be able to find a new job because in this hypothetical, the demand for it (a living human doing the work) is gone.
I consider this an increase in supply because it’s an increase in the potential supply. Productivity increases (which is what this is) mean you can make more, which drives down the price, which means that artists get paid less (or just get replaced).
Remember: if you 10x the productivity of an employee, that typically doesn’t mean you produce 10x the product, it typically means you need 1/10th the employees. That payroll saving goes right into the pockets of execs.
Also wrt luddites, they weren’t wrong. It did absolutely demolish their industry and devastate the workers. It’s just that the textile industry was only a small part of the economy, and there were other industries who could absorb the displaced workers after they got retrained.
LLMs threaten almost every industry, so there is a greater worker impact and fewer places for displaced workers to go. Also now workers are responsible for bearing the costs of their own retraining, unlike back in the day of the luddites.