If your painting can be painted in partnership with an LLM, wow!

If your essay can be written in partnership with an LLM, wow!

If your painting portfolio website can be written in partnership with an LLM, wow!

If your museum show can be designed in partnership with an LLM, wow!

If the placards next to each of your paintings can be written in partnership with an LLM, wow!

If the car that takes me to the gallery can be designed and driven in partnership with an LLM, wow!

If the newspaper or novel that you read on the way to the gallery can be written in partnership with an LLM, wow!

If an LLM can give tours at the gallery and answer questions asked by visitors, wow!

If an LLM can write the music that I listen to on my way out of the gallery, wow!

If an LLM can synthetically perform the music, too, wow!

> If AI means more concepts are discovered the tower gets taller - and we find those joyful moments more often. If there are infinite moments to be found, why not go as fast as possible!

I don't understand how a person can say this with a straight face. There has been so much discussion of this, and so many reasons have been given, that one can only assume that, if you're asking the question and you have thought about the issue and read what people have said you're not only asking rhetorically but have some personal reason for insisting on a frankly pretty frustrating, borderline insensitive insistence on being positive. I'm not trying to be snotty or rude. I just want to say that to me there is something uncanny about your comment, in its total blindness to any of the reasons someone might not only disagree with you but grieve the death of, say, their academic discipline in its current form -- and in weirdly breezy lack of empathy.

No, it's not the same as mechanization. The fundamental difference, and why I find it illogical to argue either for "AI will open up tons of new work avenues" or "AI will kill all jobs" is that it all hinges on whether AI "caps out" at an intelligence level below humans (in at least some domains/capabilities), or if it is able to surpass human intelligence at all levels.

If the former is true, then yes, there will be a lot for humans to do. If the latter is true, then no, there will be no reasonable cognitive role for humans to play (beyond perhaps for some legal, "nostalgic" reasons or what not). So whether one decides to be optimistic or pessimistic really depends on if you think AI will stay at a level below humans. I really don't know, so I'm not "taking sides" in this debate.