I thoought about this issue a few years ago and stumbled onto https://basicincome.org/ - money for people to live when there's no jobs to pay them. I probably should've dove into this full bore because our tech market is drying up. AI doesn't pay for articles, it just hoovers them.
Yes, I'm constantly amazed and concerned by my own similar experiments. At the least, we're going to need some kind of universal income, though that won't address lack of purpose. It does not change your overall point, but for what it's worth, when I reached the A.I written portion of the writing, I became less engaged without knowing why. After a paragraph or two I found myself wondering if the font choice was different from usual, or if I just didn't find the topic as compelling. I gave myself permission to skim to the twist, and was then a bit relieved to learn what I'd been reading was not you. Looking again, habits of syntax aside, I see the writing lacks your "voice" or that undertone of awareness of how the events of the past on which you're reporting exist in conversation with events of today. While the AI does draw the conclusion in the end, I believe in your writing it would exist, subtly, throughout. Of course, these differences might be made invisible with some light adjustments via prompts to the AI --its patience for iteration is high. For a little while longer, humans are needed to guide these iterations... until we are not.
I share your concerns. As I was reading the article, after I read the final paragraph, I was struck by a change in tone in the last paragraph: a subtly different writing style or something. I commend Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Nearer" for a well-reasoned and optimistic view of where AI takes us.
I thoought about this issue a few years ago and stumbled onto https://basicincome.org/ - money for people to live when there's no jobs to pay them. I probably should've dove into this full bore because our tech market is drying up. AI doesn't pay for articles, it just hoovers them.
I will read the Kurzweil piece. Thanks for the comment.
Yes, I'm constantly amazed and concerned by my own similar experiments. At the least, we're going to need some kind of universal income, though that won't address lack of purpose. It does not change your overall point, but for what it's worth, when I reached the A.I written portion of the writing, I became less engaged without knowing why. After a paragraph or two I found myself wondering if the font choice was different from usual, or if I just didn't find the topic as compelling. I gave myself permission to skim to the twist, and was then a bit relieved to learn what I'd been reading was not you. Looking again, habits of syntax aside, I see the writing lacks your "voice" or that undertone of awareness of how the events of the past on which you're reporting exist in conversation with events of today. While the AI does draw the conclusion in the end, I believe in your writing it would exist, subtly, throughout. Of course, these differences might be made invisible with some light adjustments via prompts to the AI --its patience for iteration is high. For a little while longer, humans are needed to guide these iterations... until we are not.
I share your concerns. As I was reading the article, after I read the final paragraph, I was struck by a change in tone in the last paragraph: a subtly different writing style or something. I commend Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Nearer" for a well-reasoned and optimistic view of where AI takes us.