Looking at the example of J. K. Rowling in the article, I've had a brainfart.
Farming has been mechanized. So has manufacturing, and as the article predicts, service sector work will be done by machines as well. There will always be some demand for IT, though that's being filled more frequently by workers in countries like India with cheap labor. Same goes for accounting, call center and other formerly safe white collar jobs.
Essentially, almost the entire workforce will be replaced by machines.
So what's left that can't be done by machines?
Art. All art - writing, painting, music, computer games, etc.
That's how J. K. Rowling adapted, by writing books. So far, we don't know how to make machines that make art, thus we have to make art ourselves. Granted, there's a lot of competition out there for artists, but there are still many people out there who can make money through selling artwork and performances.
If you consider advertising as art, definitely! Whenever you buy a product, you are almost certainly paying a heavy chunk of change for the artists, models (whether athletic or voluptuous), and musicians who put together commercials and other advertising materials that promote the product.
Seeings how people like downloading their music, movies and books for free off the web, I don't think your prediction has much hope of coming true. There will be tons of artists out there, probably even more than ever before, but they won't be making nearly enough money to make ends meet.
In the old days, cartoons were drawn by artists, frame by frame. Senior artists did the main frames and juniors did the "in betweening". Today, in-betweening is done by software. How long will it be until a single person can create a full-length animated movie? How long until the creation process itself is done by software?
How long will it be until a single person can create a full-length animated movie?
Given what people are doing on animation sites such as Newgrounds, the answer is now. Right now, most of the Flash movies available there are two-minute shorts, but somebody with the dedication could certainly write a 90 minute script and animate it.
Exactly. Art can be automated. Who's to say AI or even dumb creativity algorithms won't be improving in the near future, along with everything else? There's a very good possibility that EVERY kind of job will ultimately be done better with automation. Science. Art. Even business. In which case, humans are no longer useful as labor at all and exist only to consume the fruits of the automated economy. Which they will in abundance. I believe there was something in that article about letting the people
The anime Hoshi no Koi is a 45 minute movie, animated entirely by one man on his computer. The original version had him and his wife doing the voices, but a studio bought it and created a profession soundtrack.
The article didn't really address the fact that the rich will be super, super rich beyond the wildest imaginations of today's rich if this comes to pass. The arts could be a way to make a living, but I you'd make the money by finding a rich patron to sponser you. Today most successful artists become famous and lots of middle-class/poor people buy CD's/books/movie tickets, and the artist gets a small cut from each of them. If the middle-class and poor are destitute, you'd have to get money from the rich.
I defy you to prove that "Daredevil" was written by a human being, rather than a Markov chain-based movie script generator.
Seriously, I expect to see at least some creative pursuits go the same route as unskilled labor. Computers can already write passable music and play killer chess. Also, robots will be able to kick our butts when it comes to the replication of art. If you want a mural of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" on your building, you could hire a local artist to do it, or the Paint-o-matic 3000. A really good artist could easily outperform the Paint-o-matic (it would take three times as long), but a mediocre one couldn't.
Even if this Marshall guy's dystopian, "ninety percent of everybody thrown out on the street" world never pans out, I'm still left with the vague worry that there won't be anything useful and constructive for many of us to do. Posting to/. will skyrocket.
When I was reading the article, the blurb about giving everyone $25k per year, no strings attached, smacked of welfare/socialism. Although the intent was to inject funds into the economy, no work was expended to obtain that money on the part of the recipient (ie, I Exist, therefore I am Entitled.)
A better way of handling it would be to couch the disbursment of funds as grants (artistic, research, or otherwise.) At least then there would be the idea of creative/scientific pursuit to benefit society, rath
This would be a big boon for universities, companies, and society in general, as it would help shift those put out of work into more advanced fields. In fact, why not give access to university labs and engineering facilities for those so inclined, and encourage more grant money for basic and applied research?
I'm a socialist and support welfare but in the circumstance that he described, giving a grant is far more preferable AS LONG AS the result is not owned by a corporation or some private entity. That
giving a grant is far more preferable AS LONG AS the result is not owned by a corporation or some private entity.
Amen to that. No point in spending money converting a public good to private wealth.
In any case, what you are saying about educating everyone will not have the impact you are assuming. For instance, even if everyone was say computer engineers, a lot of people would be out of jobs.
In the short run, this is correct. In the long run though, this would result in more eligible people apply
old message..just got around to it.. hope you don't mind:)
I think your stance can be summed up with these quotes:
My belief is that a once you get to a critical mass of people with skills for independent analytical thinking (one of the reasons for pursuing higher education), only good things can happen.
My hope is that given the right skill set, they'll create new industries and occupations that can employ educated (and non-educated) people. Besides, at the very worst, I'm going to bet that we'r
Seriously, there are some people who will never make worthwhile contributions to any creative endeavor. Throughout this discussion, I've been racking my brain trying to think of what to do with them. What do we owe people, just for being people? We can't shoot them, or let them die on the streets. And yet they would no longer be useful for anything.
I also shudder to think of the sort of cultural contributions which will be made by people who just wan
Even if a great number of the works produced are of exceptional quality, how valuable are they if there are already a lifetime worth of good books, music, and movies already produced, waiting to be consumed.
Where is this library of great works? In the case of movies, deteriorating, most likely. A friend of mine works for the UCLA Film & Television archives - many very important prints, some the only complete versions, literally are falling apart. Warners doesn't give a shit - they just check them
I really wasn't thinking about our current wealth of media. While the modern library may be slowly dying in vaults across the world, I was thinking more about the sheer volume that would be produced if everyone received artistic grants. Ninety percent of it would be crap (which is par for any human endeavor), but there will still be enough excellent stuff to crowd the market.
I don't want to be stuck as a mere consumer either. It would suck not to feel like I was doing something meaningful with my life
Simple: Fixing the machines. Sure, that may eventually happen too. But for now, it's a lot easier to create a machine that flips burgers than to create a machine that can fix a broken burger-flipper.
Along the same line of reasoning, I wouldn't expect to see robot plumbers or electricians for quite a while either.
No doubt Marshall Brain is a smart guy; butg it surprised me that he described the details of Rowling and the first Harry Potter book, but completely failed to connect the dots.
Rowling was a welfare mom! She took up writing out of desperation, because she needed to have a source of income to provide a better life for her kids. She did NOT do it because she felt some "artistic urge" to create something, she did it because of the immense economic pressure on her family!
The Artistic Economy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Farming has been mechanized. So has manufacturing, and as the article predicts, service sector work will be done by machines as well. There will always be some demand for IT, though that's being filled more frequently by workers in countries like India with cheap labor. Same goes for accounting, call center and other formerly safe white collar jobs.
Essentially, almost the entire workforce will be replaced by machines.
So what's left that can't be done by machines?
Art. All art - writing, painting, music, computer games, etc.
That's how J. K. Rowling adapted, by writing books. So far, we don't know how to make machines that make art, thus we have to make art ourselves. Granted, there's a lot of competition out there for artists, but there are still many people out there who can make money through selling artwork and performances.
So are we entering the Artistic Economy? Maybe...
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:1, Interesting)
If you consider advertising as art, definitely! Whenever you buy a product, you are almost certainly paying a heavy chunk of change for the artists, models (whether athletic or voluptuous), and musicians who put together commercials and other advertising materials that promote the product.
Doubtful... (Score:3, Interesting)
What about automated art? (Score:2)
Newgrounds (Score:2)
How long will it be until a single person can create a full-length animated movie?
Given what people are doing on animation sites such as Newgrounds, the answer is now. Right now, most of the Flash movies available there are two-minute shorts, but somebody with the dedication could certainly write a 90 minute script and animate it.
Re:What about automated art? (Score:2)
Everything can be automated and probably will (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about automated art? (Score:1)
This animated film [imdb.com] was hand-drawn by a single man.
Re:What about automated art? (Score:1, Interesting)
Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson (Score:2)
So what's left that can't be done by machines? Art.
Not after everything's copyrighted [baen.com].
Patronage from the rich.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:2)
Lets just pray we never have art that makes machines.
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, I expect to see at least some creative pursuits go the same route as unskilled labor. Computers can already write passable music and play killer chess. Also, robots will be able to kick our butts when it comes to the replication of art. If you want a mural of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" on your building, you could hire a local artist to do it, or the Paint-o-matic 3000. A really good artist could easily outperform the Paint-o-matic (it would take three times as long), but a mediocre one couldn't.
Even if this Marshall guy's dystopian, "ninety percent of everybody thrown out on the street" world never pans out, I'm still left with the vague worry that there won't be anything useful and constructive for many of us to do. Posting to
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:3, Interesting)
A better way of handling it would be to couch the disbursment of funds as grants (artistic, research, or otherwise.) At least then there would be the idea of creative/scientific pursuit to benefit society, rath
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:1)
I'm a socialist and support welfare but in the circumstance that he described, giving a grant is far more preferable AS LONG AS the result is not owned by a corporation or some private entity. That
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:2)
Amen to that. No point in spending money converting a public good to private wealth.
In any case, what you are saying about educating everyone will not have the impact you are assuming. For instance, even if everyone was say computer engineers, a lot of people would be out of jobs.
In the short run, this is correct. In the long run though, this would result in more eligible people apply
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:1)
I think your stance can be summed up with these quotes:
My belief is that a once you get to a critical mass of people with skills for independent analytical thinking (one of the reasons for pursuing higher education), only good things can happen.
My hope is that given the right skill set, they'll create new industries and occupations that can employ educated (and non-educated) people. Besides, at the very worst, I'm going to bet that we'r
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:2)
Seriously, there are some people who will never make worthwhile contributions to any creative endeavor. Throughout this discussion, I've been racking my brain trying to think of what to do with them. What do we owe people, just for being people? We can't shoot them, or let them die on the streets. And yet they would no longer be useful for anything.
I also shudder to think of the sort of cultural contributions which will be made by people who just wan
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:1)
Where is this library of great works? In the case of movies, deteriorating, most likely. A friend of mine works for the UCLA Film & Television archives - many very important prints, some the only complete versions, literally are falling apart. Warners doesn't give a shit - they just check them
Re:The Artistic Economy? (Score:2)
I don't want to be stuck as a mere consumer either. It would suck not to feel like I was doing something meaningful with my life
What can't be done by machines? (Score:2)
Along the same line of reasoning, I wouldn't expect to see robot plumbers or electricians for quite a while either.
Artistic Economy? No way! (Score:2)
Rowling was a welfare mom! She took up writing out of desperation, because she needed to have a source of income to provide a better life for her kids. She did NOT do it because she felt some "artistic urge" to create something, she did it because of the immense economic pressure on her family!
Fast foward 50 to 100 years to the "ro
Forgot to mention... (Score:2)