Kirn has expanded his peculiar argument against AI “art”. He’s on the angelic side of the fight, but his approach is destructive. He focuses on risk and vulnerability as the important factors that make human products human. THE PRODUCT IS NOT THE POINT.

Peter Biles gets a lot closer:

For me, knowing that a specific piece of art came from a human mind is what makes it interesting.

This should be the whole purpose of AN ECONOMY. We are humans, and everything we do should make humans USEFUL and PRODUCTIVE. Life is meant to be useful, meant to serve.

The Sharia system aimed in this direction, and the Soviet system accomplished it.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his WORK. If you don’t work, you don’t eat.

France tried to operate this way after recovering from the SCIENCE TERRORISTS of 1789.

Western capitalism got pretty close to a human-based economy under the influence of FDR, especially after WW2. Business aimed to make life tolerable and productive for its WORKERS, who were also the CONSUMERS.

After 1970, under the influence of Nixon and Jack Welch and many other demons, we switched our focus to enriching the demons. AI is a tool in the hands of the demons, and they will use it the same way they use everything else. Enrich the demons, kill the humans.

The proper goal shouldn’t be the quality of the art or the cars or the cellphones or the washing machines. The proper goal is to optimize and reward the WORK done by ORDINARY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY who build the products.

See Economics As A Verb.