4 ms·

> Trading quality for price Means that many, many more people can have something of passable quality. For example: > not that long ago all clothes you wore w

by pdonis 4y ago

> Trading quality for price Means that many, many more people can have something of passable quality. For example: > not that long ago all clothes you wore were custom made by a tailor If you could afford a tailor; otherwise you had to make do with homemade rags that constantly needed mending and looked terrible. > all the music you listened to was played live by musicians If you could afford to go to concerts. > all stories were brought to life in front of you by theatre actors If you could afford to go to the theatre. > now all of those while still available are significantly more expensive and niche than the mechanized (production or reproduction) equivalents Which the vast majority of people can afford, and which significantly improves their quality of life. Now they can buy clothes at Walmart or Target instead of having to wear homemade; sure, not the same as a custom tailored suit, but good enough. Now they can buy digital recordings of world class musicians and theatre actors for much, much less than it would cost to see them live. > ChatGPT, stable diffusion and I am sure upcoming music models will enable this mechanization in the arts That already happened decades ago, as soon as mass produced recordings became widely available. It's already next to impossible for any artist who isn't world class (or, more precisely, is not publicized so that people think they're world class) to make a living at their art. ChatGPT and the equivalent in other arts aren't going to affect that much.

analog31 4y ago
Society was awash in music for centuries before recording and radio.
- mixedCase 4y ago
  If by "awash" you mean "significantly less present in regular people's life by orders of magnitude", then yes. Not to mention the degree of control over what music is actually being played.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mantas 4y ago
    It wasn't significantly less present. Singing yourself was just a given. During work, at celebrations etc. It gave full control as well.
  - analog31 4y ago
    I was thinking more along the lines of the rich traditions of folk music. I'm peripherally involved in the fiddle music scene, so I have some contact with this. The sheer quantity and variety of folk tunes, songs, and styles, is huge, and is probably the tip of the iceberg. This is why I think that people were rich with music, even if they weren't necessarily immersed in it 24/7. But cost wasn't a barrier to the enjoyment of music. Sure, people with more disposable income could enjoy more formal, and perhaps more professional, musical performances. The growing middle class created demand for music and other forms of entertainment. Music was taught in the schools. Even small towns had a bandstand in the park. Music was used in public ceremonies, including church. Any tavern was likely to have a musician, paid or not. Sometimes the pay consisted of food and lodging.
chimeracoder 4y ago
> > not that long ago all clothes you wore were custom made by a tailor > If you could afford a tailor; otherwise you had to make do with homemade rags that constantly needed mending and looked terrible. Or you bought clothes infrequently and maintained them, and they lasted longer because the quality was much better. People are so used to fast fashion these days that they assume that the poor in previous eras suffered in this regard way more than they actually did, because people assume the poor quality of clothing today is representative of how it always was, rather than a recent phenomenon. The quality of clothing was much, much higher - even for the relatively poor - and clothing wasn't treated as disposable, so people would maintain and repair it, so it would last much longer. > Which the vast majority of people can afford, and which significantly improves their quality of life. Now they can buy clothes at Walmart or Target Buying clothes at Walmart or Target is a step down, not a step up. (And ironically, it's not even necessarily cheaper!). If we're talking about clothing, it's very clear that these trends have served to the detriment of the average person, not to their benefit. The ones who actually benefit are the ones capturing the profit - the Sam Waltons of the world.
- mrtranscendence 4y ago
  You write like as soon as I put on a pair of jeans from Walmart it immediately begins disintegrating. It's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. I've had relatively cheap clothes for years without having to worry about it very much. And it's nice that when my clothes are stained or irreparably damaged I can afford to replace them quickly.
- mixedCase 4y ago
  People still have high quality clothing available, but when given the option they choose to buy cheaper clothing more frequently rather than mend high quality ones. This is a preference that has been demonstrated time and again throughout the world as it became an option. So no, I don't believe it is clear at all how this is to the detriment of the average person.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > People still have high quality clothing available, but when given the option they choose to buy cheaper clothing more frequently rather than mend high quality ones. This is a preference that has been demonstrated time and again throughout the world as it became an option. This is extremely incorrect. First of all, fast fashion isn't actually necessarily cheaper. The real difference is that fast fashion exists in an industry that has gutted the entire infrastructure for alternatives, so people actually don't have the alternative options anymore. It's like saying that "people prefer to drive cars, which is evident if you look anywhere in the US". Sure, almost everyone drives cars, but that's because the previous rail infrastructure was literally ripped up and destroyed by the auto industry, so now there's no alternative. If you look at the developing world, it's very clear how incorrect your statement is, because there, fast fashion is more expensive, and other forms of clothing are far cheaper, far better quality, and far more common.
coding123 4y ago
I guess IF I'm still alive in a few years too since I can barely afford eggs now. Do you have an AI replacement for food yet?
leshow 4y ago
> Trading quality for price > Means that many, many more people can have something of passable quality. There is also a feedback loop where automation puts people out of work, and even though it helps make products cheaper, it also creates less of a market for the products. Your post makes it seems like there are only positives.

by pdonis 4y ago

analog31 4y ago

Society was awash in music for centuries before recording and radio.

mixedCase 4y ago
If by "awash" you mean "significantly less present in regular people's life by orders of magnitude", then yes. Not to mention the degree of control over what music is actually being played.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mantas 4y ago
  It wasn't significantly less present. Singing yourself was just a given. During work, at celebrations etc. It gave full control as well.
- analog31 4y ago
  I was thinking more along the lines of the rich traditions of folk music. I'm peripherally involved in the fiddle music scene, so I have some contact with this. The sheer quantity and variety of folk tunes, songs, and styles, is huge, and is probably the tip of the iceberg. This is why I think that people were rich with music, even if they weren't necessarily immersed in it 24/7. But cost wasn't a barrier to the enjoyment of music. Sure, people with more disposable income could enjoy more formal, and perhaps more professional, musical performances. The growing middle class created demand for music and other forms of entertainment. Music was taught in the schools. Even small towns had a bandstand in the park. Music was used in public ceremonies, including church. Any tavern was likely to have a musician, paid or not. Sometimes the pay consisted of food and lodging.

chimeracoder 4y ago

> > not that long ago all clothes you wore were custom made by a tailor > If you could afford a tailor; otherwise you had to make do with homemade rags that constantly needed mending and looked terrible. Or you bought clothes infrequently and maintained them, and they lasted longer because the quality was much better. People are so used to fast fashion these days that they assume that the poor in previous eras suffered in this regard way more than they actually did, because people assume the poor quality of clothing today is representative of how it always was, rather than a recent phenomenon. The quality of clothing was much, much higher - even for the relatively poor - and clothing wasn't treated as disposable, so people would maintain and repair it, so it would last much longer. > Which the vast majority of people can afford, and which significantly improves their quality of life. Now they can buy clothes at Walmart or Target Buying clothes at Walmart or Target is a step down, not a step up. (And ironically, it's not even necessarily cheaper!). If we're talking about clothing, it's very clear that these trends have served to the detriment of the average person, not to their benefit. The ones who actually benefit are the ones capturing the profit - the Sam Waltons of the world.

mrtranscendence 4y ago
You write like as soon as I put on a pair of jeans from Walmart it immediately begins disintegrating. It's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. I've had relatively cheap clothes for years without having to worry about it very much. And it's nice that when my clothes are stained or irreparably damaged I can afford to replace them quickly.
mixedCase 4y ago
People still have high quality clothing available, but when given the option they choose to buy cheaper clothing more frequently rather than mend high quality ones. This is a preference that has been demonstrated time and again throughout the world as it became an option. So no, I don't believe it is clear at all how this is to the detriment of the average person.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > People still have high quality clothing available, but when given the option they choose to buy cheaper clothing more frequently rather than mend high quality ones. This is a preference that has been demonstrated time and again throughout the world as it became an option. This is extremely incorrect. First of all, fast fashion isn't actually necessarily cheaper. The real difference is that fast fashion exists in an industry that has gutted the entire infrastructure for alternatives, so people actually don't have the alternative options anymore. It's like saying that "people prefer to drive cars, which is evident if you look anywhere in the US". Sure, almost everyone drives cars, but that's because the previous rail infrastructure was literally ripped up and destroyed by the auto industry, so now there's no alternative. If you look at the developing world, it's very clear how incorrect your statement is, because there, fast fashion is more expensive, and other forms of clothing are far cheaper, far better quality, and far more common.

coding123 4y ago

I guess IF I'm still alive in a few years too since I can barely afford eggs now. Do you have an AI replacement for food yet?

leshow 4y ago

> Trading quality for price > Means that many, many more people can have something of passable quality. There is also a feedback loop where automation puts people out of work, and even though it helps make products cheaper, it also creates less of a market for the products. Your post makes it seems like there are only positives.