3 ms·

Imagine someone came up with a way to print houses for nearly-free. Anyone needs shelter? Bam, instant house. Landlords would lose income left and right. The

Imagine someone came up with a way to print houses for nearly-free. Anyone needs shelter? Bam, instant house. Landlords would lose income left and right. The relevant question is: would society stop the building of these free houses to protect the interest of the landlords? (Now, take that analogy and throw it in the trash. ;) Housing is essential; art is fundamentally a luxury good. If we want to, we can have a society that protects profit-making on luxury goods and profit-making on necessities differently. "Someone is losing income, therefore this change is bad" is too simple a rule to build a healthy society upon, but a reasonable person can conclude "Artists are losing their livelihoods, therefore this change is bad").

skydhash 3y ago
> Imagine someone came up with a way to print houses for nearly-free. Anyone needs shelter? Bam, instant house. Money is just paper. And now with cashless systems, it's now only bits on some computers. But no one sane wants to maximize everyone accounts or print cash to hand out. Art takes hours, days, even years or human labor to produce. Copyright laws set an artificial scarcity, because if it can be replicated at no cost, there's no way for the author to recoup the cost of production. In the analogy you provided, you'd still have to deal with land scarcity and environmental impact.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > Art takes hours, days, even years or human labor to produce Well, depending on whether one considers the output of one of the AI image diffusion algorithms "art"... Not anymore, right? That's rather the point of the debate? That we've gone over a few decades from a world of "This wall is blank. Maybe I'll go to the art show and find a piece someone made, or commission a piece based on an idea in my head" to "This wall is blank. Maybe I'll spend two hours futzing with DALL-E and send the result off to a local print-shop, then pop it over to Michael's and frame it?"

skydhash 3y ago

> Imagine someone came up with a way to print houses for nearly-free. Anyone needs shelter? Bam, instant house. Money is just paper. And now with cashless systems, it's now only bits on some computers. But no one sane wants to maximize everyone accounts or print cash to hand out. Art takes hours, days, even years or human labor to produce. Copyright laws set an artificial scarcity, because if it can be replicated at no cost, there's no way for the author to recoup the cost of production. In the analogy you provided, you'd still have to deal with land scarcity and environmental impact.

shadowgovt 3y ago
> Art takes hours, days, even years or human labor to produce Well, depending on whether one considers the output of one of the AI image diffusion algorithms "art"... Not anymore, right? That's rather the point of the debate? That we've gone over a few decades from a world of "This wall is blank. Maybe I'll go to the art show and find a piece someone made, or commission a piece based on an idea in my head" to "This wall is blank. Maybe I'll spend two hours futzing with DALL-E and send the result off to a local print-shop, then pop it over to Michael's and frame it?"