>>68672061>You don't. No one person's happiness is worth more than anybody elses.Right, so therefore you should weigh up your options and decide which options en masse, produces the most happiness or the least unhappiness.
>The free market couldn't care less what people would like, only what generates the most profitSo? Why the free market the arbiter or what is good or right? We haven't had a free market, literally ever.
>Because it is a pointless non-argument to begin with. A benefit is a benefit regardless of the form it takes. Tangibility is irrelevant.Tangibility is relevant because tangibility indicates a level of value that is beyond simple happiness. It's easy to say, yes we should automate farming because we need that to fucking live and living is good. It's not so easy to say we should automate art because it makes a subset of the population happy, because you are simultaneously making another subset of the population unhappy.
>The point you seem to be trying to make is that art has some special, ephemeral quality that other types of goods do not. No I'm arguing the exact opposite. Art has literally no other quality other than making people happy which is why it is a unique good. It does absolutely nothing.
>he point that I am trying to make is that while YOU may believe that, the rest of society (and more importantly our economic system) does not,I agree with you, but that is argumentum ad populum.
>hich in turn means that any attempt to restrict AI art is doomed to failure, consequences be damned.Then why are you arguing so defensively? If you believe it's inevitable, then you have no reason to defend it. I don't believe it's inevitable because people value happiness above all and I'd rather we didn't have to go the route of fucking and then unfucking ourselves because this is a mistake that could be stopped.
