Made with Claude Opus 5.5.
The fearmongering about AI always makes us forget that NOTHING WENT FOOM, as was always predicted.
Send this to your doomer friend who has a very high P(Doom).
Accelerate.
So, to summarize, 900 mathematicians signed a letter basically saying "stop AI from doing math so that our jobs can stick around."
But for anyone who spends more than 5 seconds thinking about what unlocking the equivalent of a billion Fields Medalists would do for humanity, the benefits dramatically outweigh the costs.
Math abundance will help solve chips, medicine, fusion, and numerous other things that will improve the lives of billions, and save millions of lives.
I mean, there was a 0% chance of OpenAI (or any other AI lab) slowing down, so it's a moot point anyways.
But it just seems extremely selfish.
Weren’t you the one lecturing me about how society educated you?
Then use it.
You imagined a world where machines can produce everything, then assumed wages, ownership, scarcity and distribution all stay exactly the same.
Why?
You built a post-labor civilization and forgot economics can change with material conditions.
That’s embarrassing.
You want to stay miserable and insist humanity becomes worthless the second labor stops being necessary? Go ahead.
Hope that works out for you.
So let me get this straight.
If nobody forces you to learn, you won’t learn?
If nobody needs your labor, you see no reason to exist?
If a machine can do something better, you just resign yourself to never doing it again?
Where is the curiousity? Where is the pride? Where is the basic impulse to become better at something because you fucking want to?
You keep describing laziness like it’s some profound philosophical consequence of automation.
No. It’s just laziness.
Too lazy to learn unless compelled. Too lazy to create unless needed. Too lazy to imagine a purpose that isn’t assigned to you by an employer or a school.
And I have to admit, I’m impressed.
You managed to become this slothful without AI.
Bravo.
You’ve switched arguments again.
Yes, people are owed compensation when they are HIRED to do work. That does not mean every person whose work contributed indirectly to a tool is automatically owed a cut of every downstream use.
Artists learn from other artists constantly. Programmers learn from public code. Writers learn from books. Knowledge accumulates.
If you want to argue specifically about training data rights, licensing, or consent, make that argument. But pretending “artists deserve to be paid for commissions” and “therefore every model owes every training-source creator money forever” are the same claim is nonsense.
But, whatever. Enjoy being miserable, loser.
You’re confusing “I want to dedicate my life to art” with “the economy is obligated to make that financially viable for me.”
Those are not the same thing.
Nobody is stopping you from making art. You can paint, model, draw, write, whatever you want.
You think everyone practicing law, medicine, construction, accounting, or whatever else wakes up every morning thrilled to do it? Plenty of people do those jobs because they pay the bills.
And what does that money buy them?
Time. Security. The ability to spend the rest of their life doing the things they actually love.
We’ve been saying this for ages. If you want to make art, make it because you love making art. Not for fame. Not for money. Neither was ever guaranteed, AI or not.
If fame or money comes from it, great. Enjoy it. But never confuse a possible reward with something the world owes you.
You are either a child or someone who never grew up if you think choosing to become an artist means you’re entitled to make a living from it.
You’re assuming that if people no longer have to learn, struggle, or create, they simply won’t.
Why?
Someone else figured out algebra centuries ago. I still learned algebra because I wanted to understand it. I still find it interesting.
People climb mountains they don’t need to climb. Make art they don’t need to make. Learn languages they don’t need to speak. Challenge is not valuable only when it is forced on you.
And frankly, it is a strange kind of lack of empathy to assume everyone else must experience meaning exactly as you do.
You’re worried people might stop living because machines make life easier, but you’re already letting the possibility of that future stop you from living now.
Do you climb a mountain to see the world, do you simply want the world to see you?
Most people hate change.
And we’re heading into a period of more change, happening faster than almost anyone is prepared for.
The transition will be bumpy. Entire industries will be reshaped and billions of people will have to adapt.
But on the other side there is something amazing -almost magic like technology, super abundance, longer and healthier lives, and possibilities that once belonged only to science fiction.
The road may be rough.
The destination will be incredible.
@ChengFengOfZoe No. Pick up the fucking pen.
AI can draw? Cool. So can you.
It can make 10,000 images in an instance. It still doesn’t get to decide whether you stop making yours.
You love Zoe? Draw her again.
Then do it again tomorrow.
Don’t surrender your joy that easily.
This is an oft-repeated sentiment from AI critics, and it is understandable. But let's take it beyond face value.
You want machines to do your chores. Okay. How? Robots.
Do you know how much robots cost?
For that future to exist, cheaper production, better hardware, batteries, logistics, maintenance, deployment, and a dozen other bottlenecks have to be solved first.
Are you going to help solve them?
Or are you just going to bitch and moan that nobody has solved them for you yet, while waiting around for someone else to do the hard part?