Do not get me wrong: I'm a big fan of AI. I think it has a lot of good in store for us. But I also have a good understanding of human reality, where we'll often reach for what's easy instead of what's right.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
And I also have a good understanding of the business world. If we don't have to pay good artists to make good art, where do the artists go? There is a social pressure right now to have corporations pay graphic artists for their work, rather than jumping to generative models. Rightfully so.
We must maintain this social stance, ensuring AI enhances rather than replaces meaningful work. Many people find deep fulfillment in creative and skilled labor - we shouldn't eliminate these opportunities for mere efficiency.
AI should tackle what's difficult or impossible, helping us live better lives, not act as another market force that strips away people's joy and security.
The goal is to use AI wisely: to handle mundane tasks, spark innovation, and solve complex problems. But we must actively protect spaces where human creativity and craftsmanship thrive. This technology should expand our capabilities, not shrink our opportunities for meaningful work.
While I love solving problems through code and systems, I know my future involves less direct coding and more AI interaction. I already build systems that give non-technical users access to AI capabilities. This evolution (for me) doesn't worry me - it's exciting.
What concerns me is protecting fulfilling creative work - graphic design, painting, woodworking, writing. These aren't just jobs; they're avenues for human expression. AI itself won't actively discourage these pursuits, but corporations that control or use them might eliminate these human outputs.
Comments