• elfin8er@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The problem with replacing actors with digital replicas is that now you need to figure out how to find work for (hundreds of?) thousands of actors to support themselves.

    Edit: “you” as in society

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      No I don’t, that’s not my responsibility. If they wind up literally unemployed I’m fine with contributing to a social safety net for them, and ultimately I’m a fan of UBI which would help everyone, but if they find that they can no longer earn a living as an actor and still want to have a job then they should look for a different line of work. Lots of people try to make a living as actors and find that they have to do something else instead.

      Sometimes changes in technology cause changes in fundamental economics, resulting in classes of jobs going away. There used to be human telephone operators that would connect you directly to whoever you were calling on the phone, they got replaced with automation and had to go find other lines of work. Should we have prevented the automation of telephony in order to save those jobs?

      I myself am a programmer, and I can see the writing on the wall for some of the sorts of work that I do. Eventually AI will get good enough at coding that I’ll be relegated to a “manager” role of sorts telling AI what code to write, or possibly even have to find a second career to get started on. I accept that this sort of thing happens sometimes. I would rather have this sort of thing happen than ban the progression of technology, because I can look beyond my immediate needs and desire for a paycheck at the greater good that lies ahead from these increased capabilities.