Making art and writing just happens to be easy to automate with neural networks and machine learning, neither of which was originally researched for the purpose of replacing artists and writers.
Good luck disassembling a ship with a neural network. And maybe do some research about the difficulties of application-specific robotics.
I think it is just a matter of where you put resources. I am sure if you put resources into improving recycling ships some advancements will be done (it won’t be done using neural network probably).
But that’s true of everything. This guy is explicitly angry about AI not being used in ship decommission, which is just weird.
It’s not about the ships.
Shipbreaking is the author’s example, but it’s not the author’s point.
He could have bemoaned the lack of tree-trimming robots or the vaporware nature of self-driving cars instead.
The key point is the heavy investment in automating away things that bring us joy while doing nothing about vast classes of unpleasant drudgery.
Hell, look at roofers. A lot of injuries there are from falls, easily preventable with fall harnesses. It doesn’t even require a big research investment! Our society simply doesn’t value those lives enough to protect them.
Define art, though.
As it stands neural networks and LLMs can’t do it, because they lack imagination. A human can use it as tool to make art though, and we don’t have these silly kinds of conversations about photoshop (anymore!).
As for the OP, you’ve taken it a bit more literally and reacted a bit more defensively than I think is warranted. The point is about our systems priorities, not so much the specifics.
I have a feeling if we performed a lobotomy-like surgery on someone that eliminated their imagination and told them to just put paint on a canvas, you’d still call that art.
I would, at least. There’s some subjectivity to the definition of art and what people think has artistic value.