Downgrading because we want people to stay employed?
What’s the point of bringing up “ethics?” The job only existed in the first place because of technology, and now people want to argue that there is a right or wrong aspect to it?
How about the poor candle makers or buggy whip manufacturers? Should we keep downgrading society just to keep a few “artists” happy?
DmMacniel@feddit.de 1 month ago
ricdeh@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Then let’s go back to ploughing our fields by hand, surely that will create many new employment opportunities!
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Eh, we weren’t paying for that back in the day anyway.
Zorque@kbin.social 1 month ago
More importantly, the system we all accept (willingly or not) requires that people be employed to survive.
It's not a matter of wanting to be employed, as needing to be employed.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 month ago
The concern is that the training and potentially production voices are not properly compensated or consenting
It’s not so much that a new tool is used, it’s that it exists due to the artistic product of people who aren’t profiting from the novel use
card797@champserver.net 1 month ago
The term Luddite comes to mind.
novibe@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Luddites were not anti-technology. They saw the progress of technology IN a primitive capitalist system and understood that technology would never benefit them, and always be used to subjugate them more.
If technology only benefits 0.1% of the world, and lead to the world dying, does it benefit humanity at all?