But of course. You would only worry about AI if it will replace your job.

Factory workers didn't worry about cars, but buggy drivers did. Office workers didn't worry about factory automation, but factory workers did.

But this is just the full-on race to the bottom. Stated simply this philosophy would be "there is only power those to weak to be effective at wielding it".

I think exactly the opposite of you because to me consuming from a firehose of slop is the most terrible way you could waste a human life.

Counting on:

- AI never advancing past a "firehose of mediocre slop"

- Consumers as an aggregate "choosing" quality over cost and availability

is a good way to never worry about AI, yes. But that's not the assumptions this article or thread is written on.

You’re doing that thing that people sometimes do where they say something incredibly naive but do so in such a confident manner that they imply they are really this enlightened individual and it’s everyone else who’s dumb.

But this idea that you’ve put forth really doesn’t hold up to even the lightest bit of scrutiny when you actually start thinking about what this would look like in reality.

> There is a very strong argument that if your work output can be discarded effectively in favor of a firehose of mediocre slop...

> The only people I see handwringing over AI slop replacing their jobs are people who produce things of quality on the level of AI slop. Nobody truly creative seems to feel this way.

Have you ever worked for an American company? They almost always choose slop over quality. Why should an executive hire employ a skilled American software engineer, when he can fire him and hire three offshore engineers who don't really know what they're doing for half the price? Things won't blow up immediately, there's a chance they'll just limp along in a degraded state, and by then executive will be off somewhere else with a bonus in his pocket.

Also, how many people are "truly creative" and how does that compare to the number of people who have to eat?

> then it is a moral imperative that we stop employing human beings in those roles as it’s a terrible waste of a human life.

And what should they do then? Sit around jerking off under a bridge?

There's no "moral imperative" to cast people off into poverty. And that's what will happen: there will be no retraining, no effort to find roles for the displaced people. They'll just be discarded. That's a "terrible waste of a human life."