4 ms·

> But as the cost of something falls, people consume more of it. That’s a law in economics. Which law is that? When the tulipmania crash happened, did people s

by yucky 4y ago

> But as the cost of something falls, people consume more of it. That’s a law in economics. Which law is that? When the tulipmania crash happened, did people start consuming more tulip bulbs?

mikojan 4y ago
The "law of diminishing marginal utility" asserts that marginal utility is always positive. More is always better. In any case, it is a bizarre notion with perhaps limited applicability in the real world.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I'm not sure economists have ever overeaten :) More is for sure not always better. For instance, there may be storage costs. I discourage people from giving me nonconsumable gifts, because I don't have enough space for the crap I already have. Other economic actors like corporations can totally have this problem.
- salawat 4y ago
  Always, you say? Tell me about your thoughts on the marginal utility of child pornography. Need to be careful with those universals.
superfish 4y ago
In case you’re genuinely curious about the referenced law: “conversely, as the price of a good decreases (↓), quantity demanded will increase (↑)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand
- yucky 4y ago
  "All things being equal" is doing the heavy lifting there. All things are no longer equal though, which is the point. The time/effort to produce art has effectively become zero.
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    > The time/effort to produce art has effectively become zero. But not so the effort needed to produce "unique art". When everybody can push a button to produce "art" then how do you make the results of your button-pushing unique? The value of art is in its uniqueness, and originality. Using AI to generate art based on input training models is not that different from photography. Each generated art-piece is like a photograph taken from different viewpoint. And when everybody can use the same programs to generate their "art" the results are bound to be more or less non-unique, non-original. The scary part for artists may be that now programmers can create new original generated works of art. You can be an artist without knowing how to draw. Then again we could have a conventional artist with a unique style who would train an AI model to only generate versions of their existing paintings. Laws may need to be adapted to make it illegal to generate art based on someone else's existing art. Lawsuits will follow.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      The effort required to produce 1 particular "bored ape" or any of their many many knock-offs tended to zero. They were technically unique, sure, both by url and by content. But also mass-produced, low-effort, cookie-cutter variations, cheap and ugly. As to the last, "ugly" - without getting into "But is it art?" - if it is; it's really bad art.
  - scotteric 4y ago
    Ceteris Paribus (all things being equal) is one of the economist's favorite phrases, along with 'on the other hand'. And to be fair, it's hard to predict how a change will affect things if everything else changes as well. It is a huge assumption though.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
awithrow 4y ago
i'ts not a law, but there is also Jevon's Paradox in which the more efficient use of a resource causes overall increase in the amount of overall consumption of the resource https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox In this case you can think of Artists as the "resource" being used.

by yucky 4y ago

> But as the cost of something falls, people consume more of it. That’s a law in economics. Which law is that? When the tulipmania crash happened, did people start consuming more tulip bulbs?

mikojan 4y ago

The "law of diminishing marginal utility" asserts that marginal utility is always positive. More is always better. In any case, it is a bizarre notion with perhaps limited applicability in the real world.

maxbond 4y ago
I'm not sure economists have ever overeaten :) More is for sure not always better. For instance, there may be storage costs. I discourage people from giving me nonconsumable gifts, because I don't have enough space for the crap I already have. Other economic actors like corporations can totally have this problem.
salawat 4y ago
Always, you say? Tell me about your thoughts on the marginal utility of child pornography. Need to be careful with those universals.

superfish 4y ago

In case you’re genuinely curious about the referenced law: “conversely, as the price of a good decreases (↓), quantity demanded will increase (↑)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand

yucky 4y ago
"All things being equal" is doing the heavy lifting there. All things are no longer equal though, which is the point. The time/effort to produce art has effectively become zero.
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  > The time/effort to produce art has effectively become zero. But not so the effort needed to produce "unique art". When everybody can push a button to produce "art" then how do you make the results of your button-pushing unique? The value of art is in its uniqueness, and originality. Using AI to generate art based on input training models is not that different from photography. Each generated art-piece is like a photograph taken from different viewpoint. And when everybody can use the same programs to generate their "art" the results are bound to be more or less non-unique, non-original. The scary part for artists may be that now programmers can create new original generated works of art. You can be an artist without knowing how to draw. Then again we could have a conventional artist with a unique style who would train an AI model to only generate versions of their existing paintings. Laws may need to be adapted to make it illegal to generate art based on someone else's existing art. Lawsuits will follow.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    The effort required to produce 1 particular "bored ape" or any of their many many knock-offs tended to zero. They were technically unique, sure, both by url and by content. But also mass-produced, low-effort, cookie-cutter variations, cheap and ugly. As to the last, "ugly" - without getting into "But is it art?" - if it is; it's really bad art.
- scotteric 4y ago
  Ceteris Paribus (all things being equal) is one of the economist's favorite phrases, along with 'on the other hand'. And to be fair, it's hard to predict how a change will affect things if everything else changes as well. It is a huge assumption though.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

awithrow 4y ago

i'ts not a law, but there is also Jevon's Paradox in which the more efficient use of a resource causes overall increase in the amount of overall consumption of the resource https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox In this case you can think of Artists as the "resource" being used.