[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's barley short of what a 1920x1080 image costs from openai, but we're in a thread about instructional video, which is neither economical nor available yet

[AnthonyMouse]

Video would cost more than still images for the obvious reasons, but still likely much less than the cost of however many frames per second times that number of images, because nearly all of the frames will be minor variations on the previous frame. Meanwhile it's going to be a couple years before that technology exists because you'd have to develop something that can sync video with audio etc., by which point the hardware would be more power efficient.

So now we're speculating on the cost of something that doesn't exist yet, but it's highly likely that hardware is going to get more power efficient over time, so the question then isn't whether "AI can do this for a lower price than humans" will happen, it's just a question of how long before it does.