[raynr]

I didn't get that from the poster you're replying to. I agree with you that people will create because people are people and want to create.

But people also have to eat, need shelter, want kids, have to take care of health issues, and so on. For that they need money. If they can't get money from their creations they'll spend less time creating and more time engaging in activity that generates returns.

[csnover]

> If they can't get money from their creations they'll spend less time creating and more time engaging in activity that generates returns.

On the other hand, artists who adapt AI into their workflows will have vastly improved productivity, so the amount of time they need to create new works can also be much smaller for the same amount of output.

There will still be some artists who can avoid using AI and make a living, but like all skilled industries that have already been disrupted by automation, the market for that kind of work will become smaller and more exclusive, and that’s probably OK. Live musicians were the only way to get music on the radio, or in the cinema, or at a party, until audio recordings decimated the industry[0]. You can still buy hand-made furniture, or clothing, or cars, but most people today get them from a factory.

I do think there are serious issues with large players attempting to corner the market and extract all the wealth for themselves, but this is an old problem[1], and I think on balance these lawsuits perpetuate, rather than attempt to solve, the root problem: a missing social safety net and no guarantee that people will not have to scramble to survive every time a disruptive technology emerges.

[0] https://timeline.com/live-musicians-were-so-terrified-of-rec...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

[antifa]

> On the other hand, artists who adapt AI into their workflows

This will benefit people who spam garbage 100x more than it will benefit the natural human desire to create art.

[csnover]

This part of the discussion is mainly about economics, not expression.

The parent argument was that AI will force artists to spend more time engaging in non-artistic pursuits because the amount of money the market will pay for artwork will go down. The counterpoint is that the amount of time the artist needs to spend on creating artwork is also reduced. In other words, if the market value for creating one artwork goes down by 50%, but the amount of time it takes also goes down by 50%, then there is no change except that the artist gets to double the amount of work they produce for the same amount of time.

Regarding the natural human desire to create art, unless you’re famous, making money as a creative involves mostly shitwork. Most commercial projects are just not very fun or interesting. Tools like generative AI can help to automate away a lot of the shitwork, so when the really interesting projects come along, they can be given more energy. This, to me, also seems like a win.