Raw LLM Responses

I always find it fascinating how a eyebrows talk about disruption, because it's very similar to how CEOs talk about efficiency. To me, something being efficient means that it is utilizing resources in a way where it's minimizing waste while maximizing productive output. In contrast, capitalist efficiency is all about the ability to make money. Something is efficient if it uses resources in such a way that it maximizes profit, even if the final result is wasteful and unproductive. Companies will literally destroy completely undamaged product in order to limit losses, even if selling those items at a discount or just giving them away is still a more productive use of those resources. In the same way, tech bros, especially those interested in ai, love to talk about disrupting markets but I don't think they have the same definition of disruption as basically everyone else. To me, a good market disruption means that you're making products more affordable for the average person while maintaining or even improving the quality due to some revolutionary advancement. That advancement also improves some tangentially related things that didn't have previously effective ways of doing them. Photography as an example did disrupt the portrait market but I think the far more important disruption was the fact that it finally gave scientists and researchers and effective way to capture the world in an objective way. Still life painters have always existed, but ultimately the way the world looks is always going to be filtered through their subjective interpretation of that thing. You can't swap a painting to infrared for photo negative to see details that are invisible to the naked eye. In contrast, tech Bros only thing about disruption in terms of how it makes them more money. Even if they literally have to do something in a less safe and effective way, if it's more profitable they'll do it. That's why the Titans submersible imploded, because he was so interested in finding a cheaper way of doing things that he didn't do it the safe or effective way. In a similar manner, AI is definitely disruptive to the art world, but unlike something like photography, it has very little useful applications outside of just Mass generating slop. I know there are some uses like being used to identify cancer, but not only do those seem less prevalent than the alternative uses for something like a camera, but those uses also don't get rid of jobs because there's always going to be a human to verify the machines accuracy. I think, fundamentally, the disconnect comes from the fact that these guys don't think about technology in terms of how it helps people. They think about it in terms of how it can generate profit. They might use disabled people as a shield, but disabled people have always been able to make art on their own. They might have to make compromises or alterations to techniques in order to do it, or they may be limited to certain mediums, but they've always been able to make art nonetheless (in addition to that, generating are is more similar to commissioning art, so it doesn't really democratize anything to begin with). The reason they actually care is because it gives them away to financially exploit disabled people by charging them for access to services related to AI in the pursuit of democratizing art. Of course, most AIS are free to use at the moment, but that's going to change the minute they find a stable way to monetize it. They only care about disabled people so long as they gain another group to squeeze profits out of.