[nkrisc]

> Unfortunately, I suspect we will get a two-tiered system, where the "middle class" (whether that's disappearing is another question) can afford human content/human support/etc, and the working class are forced to endure poor experiences with AI generated content and so on

I’m imagining world where companies like Netflix and Spotify introduce dirt-cheap subscription tiers that are populate with AI generated content, while they raise the prices on their existing offerings that have stuff made by humans.

If you’re poor you watch shitty, AI-generated movies on Netflix for $1.50/mo.

[johndoe0815]

«The literature that the Ministry of Truth produced for the proles was of "a lower level," and consisted of "rubbishy newspapers containing almost nothing except sport, crime and astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes [and] films oozing with sex."» [George Orwell, "1984"]

[captainbland]

In fairness I don't think we've needed any AI or even state help in achieving this but it stands to convert some recently loss making outlets into profitable entities again.

[ArekDymalski]

> If you’re poor you watch shitty, AI-generated movies on Netflix for $1.50/mo.

I suspect even worse scenario. If you're poor you watch shitty, ai-generated content for the current price. If you're persuaded to belive that you're middle class you cough up twice more to watch shitty, ai-generated content called premium becuase it will be "artisanely curated by humans (tm)". If you're really rich you will go to the theatre or opera.

[ben_w]

> If you're really rich you will go to the theatre or opera.

Mm, Shakespeare.

'tis easy mimic'd in style and verse; and the many devices used, familiar. When anachronism strikes, few yet notice, and fewer yet call out, for the Bard is older to us than he to Chaucer.

What folly, that the rich dress and peacock themselves so, sitting quiet and polite; gathered at great expense to what was, in days yore, the entertainment of yeoman and serf who cheered and jeered as saint and villains pranced before?

Hark, though; I say not that Avon brought no talent, rather that the talent of The Globe was to his time as the talent of The Disk to ours, as the easy-read and prolific prose of Pratchett is the closer cousin, despite the esteem of the powerful going to those hardest to follow in modern vernacular — Ulysses, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and yea, also the Bard and King James.

'tis almost as if the difficulty is the point.

(Exits, pursued by a peacock)

[lordnacho]

Well let's hope that's the worst effect.

I'm seeing a world where kids are put in a room with an AI that "educates" them, setting the lowest possible bar for personal development for your average kid and as quickly as possible expelling kids who are deemed to be a problem.

Having real teachers will be a luxury.

[bostik]

Perhaps not even the lowest possible, but the highest allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_Day

[RecycledEle]

Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing.

[nkrisc]

> the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing.

That’s why all kinds of products today with nearly zero marginal cost are free?

[ben_w]

Yup.

I'm old enough to remember when operating systems cost money[0].

And compliers. And encyclopaedias. And maps.

I've got too much good zero-cost audio and video content to get through, even at double speed.

[0] MacOS 8, I don't remember what I spent on it (UK), but wikipedia says it cost $99 in the US when it came out in 1997. Inflation adjusted, $188.56 today.

[selcuka]

> Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content?

Because, why not? It's called segmentation.

> Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing.

How do you explain why more recent movies are more expensive to buy or rent on streaming services, then?

[bayindirh]

> How do you explain why more recent movies are more expensive to buy or rent on streaming services, then?

Artificial price inflation and recouping costs combined. Fueled by FOMO, people tend to pay more to be able to access it and be up-to-date (TM) in their social circles.

They'll probably recoup the costs without inflated prices, but if they can exploit that title for more money, they'll do it.

[montroser]

Because you have to pay those humans their royalties when their content is consumed.

[fluidcruft]

Creating human-generated content will cost a lot more, so it will be paywalled. This pattern already exists, limitless machine crap will just make the differential greater.

[octacat]

Kinda interesting that facebook is switching from "real people" generated content (i.e. someone you more or less know) to "random crap" content (not even the tiktok algo). It is like shooting themself into a leg.

[fluidcruft]

I'm reminded of the whole story behind

* https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-an...

* https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-yo...

People just make content that get views and optimize what gets eyeballs. Take people out of the equation and add gradient descent and who knows what insanity will be unleashed.

[coolspot]

That’s already how Netflix works - shitty mass-produced content.

All good movies/shows are elsewhere and usually “for rent”. Anything IMDB top 100 is for rent, not included in any subscription.

[6ak74rfy]

Who’s to say that the AI-generated content will be worse than human-generated? Just because that’s the case today doesn’t mean it’ll be so forever.

[bayindirh]

Because it's upper limit is the best human created content. It doesn't create anything out of thin air. Just "emitting" things mixed from its training set.

Also, a machine cannot create equally complex or more complex than itself, so AI is always capped at human capacity, at most, asymptotically.

It can be faster. It can batch process, but it can't process "like a human".

[akaij]

For now.

[bayindirh]

Well, nature's laws are pretty resilient as far as I can see.

Laws about thermodynamics, and entropy still hold. Also, as far as I can see, no living creature, incl The Nature itself succeeded to create something more complex and sophisticated than itself.

So, I'll be sticking to my arguments, for now.

[hprotagonist]

Diamond Age ractors, then.