I never said it was necessarily art for arts sake, simply that they're creative endeavors that should be done by humans. It's a human endeavor that loses it's meaning if the creative aspects are automated. And I would argue that's something that should be valued and protected. Be it avengers 900 or high concept indie art house stuff that's only going to be seen by 5 people.

We live in a capitalist system so I feel it's a bit unfair to say that significant films were made with a profit motive in mind. It's the system we live in and many things are made with profit in mind. It's how our society is structured. I'm sure if you asked many of the creative staff on film sets if they'd rather be pursuing their passions in a more "pure" form than doing emoji movie 2 or some other profit driven shitfest they would all say yes. Instead of conceding to capital and putting more money in the pockets of people who have no positive influence on the production of movies, why don't we ask why we're even considering letting computers do creative and artistic work while the rest of us toil in soul sicking jobs that would be better suited to machines?

Some people suck. I think Leonardo DiCaprio is a bit of a piece of shit but that doesn't change the fact that acting, writing, animation, sfx, etc. is a human creative endeavors. It doesn't matter if some of them are coked out douchebags only in it for the money. They're outnumbered by plenty of others that are in it for the craft and artistry and work in spite of shitty movies, under shitty people and in shitty environments for the chance to pursue their passions. The money hungry dipshits would do something else if they couldn't make their money in film. The same can't be said for the majority of people doing the actual work.

I work in the medical field and there's a very similar parallel. I work in medicine because I want to help people, not because I'm well paid. I assure you, I'm not well paid. There are plenty of people in medicine that are though. Sone people get into it for the money. Usually, they don't. The shitty ones move on when the money dries up and the people interested in doing what little bit of good we can do stick around because we don't want to be anywhere else, doing anything else. We shouldn't sell out the bulk of people in a creative field because some of them aren't interested in the creativity.

AI automation would largely effect the peons working on a pittance and not the "coke head douchebags helping the 1% launder money". You're all edge and no point

You ask me, it's like the great quarantine to try and slow down covid

The idealists were hoping to stamp it out entirely but the reality was that covid was everywhere, and would inevitably become part of life. Quarantining served to make sure hospitals weren't overwhelmed (or rather, weren't MORE overwhelmed) until a vaccine could be made to try and get things under control

In the same vein, it makes sense to me to try and stifle AI stuff hopefully long enough to push for UBI and other social safety nets, so that when the lid comes completely off pandora's box, the damage to people's lives is mitigated and the benefits from the tech can be enjoyed in better conscience

Did you not read my comment? Companies could make way more money without regulation; it's a huge (shortsighted) right-wing talking point. But we can and have regulated them to stop abuses for profit. To say there's nothing we can do about the use of AI is like opposing minimum wage at its inception because companies are going to limit their expenses in any way they can and there's nothing we can do to stop them.