[leviathant]

>I am on the side of humanity here, but people don't pay for art.

Man, maybe you don't hang out with enough artists. It's true, people typically don't make the equivalent of a tech salary for art, but people absolutely pay for art, and artists are able to not only survive, but have the capacity to thrive.

I get what you're saying, and for ad agencies, game studios, etc. that's always been the case (I remember when office supply stores sold CD-ROMs full of Clip Art) All of the sound effects in Doom were from commercially available sample libraries. And this isn't even touching on "gallery scene and art auctions as money laundering facilities" side of things.

I get the impression that most of the people who post about this topic in tech circles are general consumers, already primed for slop by mass manufacture and pop culture. But even through that lens, "people don't pay for art" falls flat - looking at what people pay for Star Trek prop replicas, or buying into the now very diverse Disney ecosystem. Now, a lot of those kinds of folks might be more prone to slurping AI slop (Hey Gemini turn me into a Funko Pop!) but there are still tons of people who value artists and their artistry. I suspect you're just not among those people.

[ehnto]

Hey fair criticism, I am not in the typical tech circle but I am not surrounded by artists making money either.

Maybe a better way to phrase my point would be "(companies) pay for output, not artistry" which is to say you can remove the artistry, and still sell it to (companies).

People making a living from music or commissioned art in their style and under there name are pretty lucky in my experience.