3 ms·

I really enjoyed the perspective of this author and the article's contemplative tone. I think an important perspective is that these are tools for consumers, no

I really enjoyed the perspective of this author and the article's contemplative tone. I think an important perspective is that these are tools for consumers, not creators. While we are all obviously both to a degree, the current economic model makes a clear distinction. When it comes to monetary exchange, we are either artists or consumers. AI art has the potential to create a massive imbalance between these two fields, reducing the friction of being a consumer, and greatly reducing the number of people who are able to support themselves as artists. If you view yourself chiefly as a consumer this might (very narrowly) be viewed as a positive. The social cost however is creating a society that favors consumption over creation, and weights incentives accordingly

CharlieDigital 2y ago
> The social cost however is creating a society that favors consumption over creation, and weights incentives accordingly We've been heading this way progressively for the last century. If you look back at the early days of broadcast television, for example, there were only 3 channels. 72h of programming at most in any 24h time period. This deeply favored the creator (or perhaps more accurately, the owner of the channel of distribution). Now we have YT and Netflix, both of which are biased towards consumption. Is it all bad? In some ways; we have to wade through more to find the good stuff. But in other ways, we have more to choose from and more people can be creators.