[sealeck]

I think this comment is quite disingenous -- it's like if there's a rule that says "nobody can walk on the grass" that you object to because you'd like to have a picnic with some friends; your claim is that if someone gets out a bulldozer and drives it across the lawn to make a parking lot followed by an army of lawyers that anyone who wanted to picnic is objecting purely because it's a convenient way to criticise the bulldozers.

[wrsh07]

These examples don't really add up to me.

You can continue to enjoy the books and articles etc

They are just also used to create a new thing

In the picnic example, the picnickers can't use the lawn anymore.

As an aside: as somebody who lives in a dense area, I also would stay off the lawn. There's a utilitarian element where you have to rotate which lawns are used, and avoid using them when wet etc so as to maximize their utility. The picnickers should find a lawn that's open.

[keoneflick]

> You can continue to enjoy the books and articles etc

No you can't, because those people have stopped creating because the creation economy was destroyed by AI. We just keep getting recycled slop based on what existed in 2025.

[wrsh07]

I think this is confused

All of the people who I was reading and listening to and watching before AI are all still creating. Many of them are even creating new things or new types of things

I imagine breaking into the creative industry is "harder" today than it was five years ago and much harder than it was ten years ago etc, but in some ways everything is still so new.

This dismissal of creativity or people's drive to create or anything created after "the ChatGPT moment" is simply wrong and lazy thinking

[preg_match]

But then there's the morality of it, because you're essentially expecting people to be highly motivated by not-money for your own pleasure. Which might be the case today, but I don't necessarily think will be the case forever.

Yes, musicians for instance will always create music, even if they're dirt poor. That doesn't mean though we should strive to make them as dirt poor as possible to maximally optimize the agreement in our favor. That's a separate issue.

[anematode]

> You can continue to enjoy the books and articles etc

Except for the books that Anthropic bought and destroyed?

There's also the cultural displacement element: while yes, some people (including me) would seek out original content, AI slop is drowning it out. This is decreasing my and others' enjoyment.

[semiquaver]

I’m not being disingenuous. This genuinely is my opinion. Did you mean to say “I disagree and here is why?”