@simoncozens the job of a professional cameraman was always more about lighting the shot than it was about the camera itself. That’s why “camera operator” is a separate job on the credits. Good lighting never changes, and doing it well is a creative skill. Those jobs were never at risk.

@pdcawley Well, sure. All analogies break down; it's just that the story's a bit more fun than "Technological progress has always democratized access to technology and given the appearance of deskilling, but in reality instead simply creates a distinction between popular and professional use."

@simoncozens @pdcawley That’s just a bad metaphor. There were a lot of other technologies that attacked established job but camcorders weren’t one of them. Those jobs have basically remained the same, only moving from analog to digital. The only affected jobs were related to the actual film, so companies like Kodak certainly saw a significant decrease in their profits. To survive they had to do a partnership with the filmmakers unions with a promise to continue to make analog movies.
But the problem with AI is not that the quality is not good enough, it is its economical, ethical and environmental impact that is the issue. It is the amount of spam, the amount of stealing, the amount of energy required, the amount of economic speculation, the amount of money that is given to it instead of basically everything else based on pure faith…

@antopatriarca @pdcawley The first part of your answer explains why this is a *good* metaphor. The second part of your answer is unrelated, but tells me things I already knew. Thank you for contributing.