[kranke155]

No that won’t happen. Audiovisual entertainment is already beyond capacity. We make more stuff than people have the time to consume it.

The idea that this will raise wages is hilarious. I don’t see how that would be possible.

[starfezzy]

Tbh a lot of art people want money for is garbage, and most money goes to a few corporations anyways.

It would be nice to see that system rearranged. Even if there’s more art, money could instead fund artistic ventures people actually want rather than keeping powerful entities afloat/entrenched.

Maybe the number of major corporations decreases (towards a permanent handful) as the number of paid artists increases (towards basically everyone who could desire payment for art that’s actually in demand).

[kranke155]

A system being rearranged is tempting, and yes, a very likely outcome. Hollywood depends on its advantage in production values, which is quickly being eroded by AI.

However, if recent history is a guide, we won't see an increase in the number of paid artists, I'd say looking at the music industry, what we saw was the increase in the number of artists in general, but success seems to me as fickle as ever. Now, apparently, thanks to Ticketmaster monopoly, even live tours barely make any money and musicians are turning to Onlyfans (not porn, just direct support) to make money.

So here's the state of the music industry (partially due to unchallenged monopolies):

You, for the most part, don't make money making music and distributing it online

You don't make money from a live tour either.

Amazing outcome for an industry where the cost of production and distribution has collapsed. No one makes money except for the monopolies in streaming (Spotify) and ticketing (Ticketmaster).

Without monopoly protections, that's what you get. Thankfully, there's a bit more competition in the audiovisual realm with Youtube and multiple streamers. Still, I don't know what to think about what might happen.

Most artists / people in audiovisual production will likely make less money. Some will likely make a lot of money. My (kind of unfounded atm) assumption is that AI will just increase the differences in Paretto distribution of income, making the top 20% very rich and the bottom 80% very poor. Before genAI, you had a very large and vibrant VFX industry, with relatively well paid workers, which is likely to be cut down by huge numbers (it's already been cut by around 50%).

[dsign]

> Audiovisual entertainment is already beyond capacity. We make more stuff than people have the time to consume it.

No we don't. I rarely find anything that I like in Netflix, Amazon Prime or HBO. Those services are stuffed with brain bleach that I don't even find entertaining. There are "gold nuggets"[^1] I have enjoyed in those sites, but it's like one or two per year. The rest of my watching time goes to videos of people camping in the wilderness, for lack of a better thing.

[^1]: As in, they are entertaining. Rarely, they are imaginative. Even more seldom, they are educational or contribute to my personal growth.

[kranke155]

Yes we do.

You don’t get it. Those programs are made because they make money. Netflix is profitable because it makes shows that X number of people want to see.

The number of people like yourself who are underserved by stuff to watch is too low to be profitable - or they don’t know how to make a show that would appeal to this group yet.

The dark truth about TV is that it’s what people want to watch. There is no conspiracy. Here is a good Steve Jobs quote on the subject:

“ When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth.”

Anyway assuming that an industry screwed up because you personally don’t like their product is pretty incredible. No they didnt screw up. They’re just serving people who aren’t quite like yourself.

[dsign]

And? Two things can be true at the same time. Deadpool Wolverine was 300 million USD to produce. Nobody is going to put that amount of money into producing content for a corner wacko like myself, or Steve Jobs, whom, by your quote, apparently had the same problem (and 300 million USD to spare). But if it can be produced at a fraction of the price, then there is a market. And that's exactly my point.

[kranke155]

What kind of content could you want that’s not on YouTube today?

[lolinder]

A few examples:

* Slow, thoughtful, hard sci-fi that's well-written and well acted, with immersive (not campy) sets and effects. Enough of that to fill an evening a week.

* A spiritual successor to Firefly with the same production requirements and release schedule described above.

Even YouTube is bound by the same limitations as the AAA streaming platforms are—you can't sink money into something that's too niche, and right now doing things well costs buckets of money. So I'm sure there are a few fan films on YouTube adjacent to my interests, but their production value is going to be far below what it could be if things were made cheaper.

[kranke155]

Yeah afaik Firefly didn't make money even back then. In 2-10 years the tech might be there for this, but it's not there yet.

If you're looking for hard sci fi I really recommend Andor.

[smegger001]

Just because they make money from one nich doesn't mean they will appeal to another

[kranke155]

They have limited amount of resources and people have limited time capacity.

They make the most profitable content they can think of.