It WSS definitely not nothing.

Economically? Yes, if you ignore the fact that we're one of the most overworked populations in the first world and pretty much all low-level jobs(restaurant/call office/etc) have abysmally poor working conditions.

Culturally? Developed cities in Western/Northern Poland and Warsaw, sure. But everywhere else is shades of shitty and if you're LGBT+ a third of the country has legislation against your very existence.

Poland has made a lot of progress but calling it a great place to live is - while not altogether untrue - a statement of privilege more than universal reality.

It's always the privacy and freedom that have got to go so we can protect children from the terrifying internet boogiemen that probably won't even get slowed down by the new laws while 99.9% of child abuse continues as it always had.

Only allowing algorithmic feeds/recommendations on dedicated subpages to which the user has to navigate, and which are not allowed to integrate viewing the content would be an excellent start IMO.

The downside to having labels on AI-written political comments, stellar reviews of bad products, speeches by a politician, or supposed photos of wonderful holiday destinations in ads targeted at old people are what, exactly?

Are you really arguing that putting a label on AI generated content could do more harm than just leaving it (approximately) indistinguishable from the real thing might somehow be worse?

I'm not arguing that we need to label anything that used gen AI in any capacity, but past the point of e.g. minor edits, yeah, it should be labeled.

Economic value or not, AI-generated content should be labeled, and trying to pass it as human-written should be illegal, regardless of how used to AI content people do or don't become.

You still have to pay taxes, and doing this means giving up on a lot of your existing human connection, joining a community in no small part comprised of crackpots, tanking your quality of life, and losing your influence over the future of broader society.

Furthermore, it's a personal solution to a systemic problem. It'll work for a few people, but it's not a fix.

> would never command as much money as the original unless someone deliberately mixed them up so that nobody would even know which was which.

That is based on current sensibilities which are capable of change. Give it 20 years of PR campaigns and who knows where we end up.

Historically, they did because everyone's capacity for violence was equal.

What about now that the best the average person can do is a firearm against coordinated, organized military with armoured vehicles, advanced weaponry, drones, and sooner than later, full access to mass surveillance?

Also, how will a revolution happen once somebody trains a ML model end-to-end to identify desire for revolution from your search and chat history and communication with like-minded others?

Assuming the intent isn't prevented altogether through algorithmic feeds showing only content that makes it seem less attractive.

Benefits come to those who have the means to access it, and wealth is a measure of the ability to direct and influence human effort and society.

How exactly do you propose that AI will serve the wellbeing of the worker/middle classes after they've been made obsolete by it?

Goodwill of the corporations working on them? Of their shareholders, well-known to always put welfare first and profit second? Government action increasingly directed by their lobbying?

> What we need is to embrace AI and find a way to make sure that the transition and benefits of AI are distributed instead of concentrated.

Sure. How? We've not done it with any other technological advances so far, and I don't see how shifting the power balance further away from the worker/middle class will help matters.

There's a reason why the era of techno-optimism has already faded as quickly as it's begun.