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.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
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.
Consider this: My company employs several graphic designers. If starting today, we'd likely use AI instead. This pattern isn't new - factories displaced local food sources, online stores replaced bookshops, Photoshop simplified graphic design work.
The key issue isn't technology - it's intent. Are we pursuing better quality and outcomes that benefit everyone? Or are we just cutting costs to benefit executives and investors while displacing workers? That's the difference between progress and exploitation.
Comments