[replygirl]

would it though? nothing would be stopping them. the idea something would relies on an assumption that we'll soon be able to generate long, coherent, and useful instructional videos with fully resolved text on demand, with such high quality and low cost that no one will be able to compete. but we already have people out there who can do this instruction/review live and off the cuff, and who would certainly be able to make use of this stuff in their own work

[doublerabbit]

Yes it would.

Because it restricts you from creating such style videos. Your being paid a pittance for a bot to learn your style.

Why wouldn't you want more money?

[AnthonyMouse]

> Why wouldn't you want more money?

Because that style isn't that unique, so the difference is between getting paid nothing and now there is a bot that can do the same thing, or getting paid something and now there is a bot that can do the same thing.

It hasn't even been established that they're required to pay you at all.

[doublerabbit]

My style is unique. If I'm teaching folks something I'm skilled in I wouldn't want to be learned from $3 especially for a $$$ company that abuses trust.

Style is how teachers make learning happen. If teachers follow the general generic book mundaneness, you learn far less than of you apply your own style.

Besides, if they were using the content without my permission I should be allowed to seek costs for such.

[AnthonyMouse]

> My style is unique.

"You're unique, just like everybody else."

It doesn't matter if the thing is using your exact style or one which is enough of a substitute for it that the difference isn't going to make up the difference between your $50 fee and the $0.01 in electricity it takes to have the AI do it.

> Besides, if they were using the content without my permission I should be allowed to seek costs for such.

On what basis? How is it different than someone teaching their students your style, so the students can make their own original works in the same style? It's directly analogous to classroom use, which is an explicit example of fair use from the copyright statute.

[doublerabbit]

This is moot. For sake of sanity, and that I said what I wanted to say and I'll agree to disagree.

This just shows that anyone is willing to cloned for less than their actual worth which is calculated on their own basis.

If you'd rather be ripped off, having a class taught for $5 from some AI bot from your own teaching style earning a single $3 than yourself teaching and earning $5 from each class, be my guest.

Edit: I'm now post capped, so can't comment/reply on HN for another four hours anyway. Old news.

[replygirl]

keeping in mind $0.01 for something like an hour lesson, or a full class, is entirely theoretical

[AnthonyMouse]

The AI is the thing being taught, not the thing teaching a class. Once you have a model, $0.01 is the correct order of magnitude for the cost of generating an image from a prompt. If anything it's an overestimate.

[replygirl]

it restricts one from making more videos? how? i understand your comment as reiterating the assumption i was responding to then reframing that assumption with a generalization. of course fair pay is good, and my point is we don't have a solid foundation to assume ai will impact that more any other creative technology we've seen on computers in the last few decades