3 ms·

So, “previously a shoot would cost 5-figure […] now a kid can do it for $500”. “Soon we will no longer need musicians, due to rise of AI”. “If a director can

by n_ary 2y ago

So, “previously a shoot would cost 5-figure […] now a kid can do it for $500”. “Soon we will no longer need musicians, due to rise of AI”. “If a director can do it with AI writing I want X, Y, Z” A strange pattern. In all three cases, are we getting a 1:1 quality or we are so lost in age of cheap quality that those does not matter? I for one would not buy anything or pay a subscription fee, where the photo or the music was AI generated. If the creative content I want does not have a humane touch, it is not worth to me. Also, while we are bemoaning the loss of fields and jobs, behind the veil lurks the age of wrong incentives. In previous era, when my parents were pursuing a career, a record breaking profit meant more expansion, more investment, more debt and new pursuit of possibilities. Now we live in a moral bankrupt feudal age, where despite record profits, layoffs and merger+shutdown are performed like a crazy to maximize stock price and top level bonuses. It all is just regression of society’s feudal lords too deep in greed to care about the future. No one thinks anymore, here is my product, it is so cool and ground breaking, we must layoff more employees to also chase that another fad which will likely fail in a year or two but I get good bonuses and move onto another place before the consequences come due but then more layoffs can be done to pay for my mistakes. But eventually if enough people are being laid off, who will buy my products? How will my target audience pay for this thing if they don’t have a job? The economy does not work if the gains are not cycled again back to society and common folks. Also welcome to the age of media control and mass manufacturing consent(thanks to Noam Chomsky for the concept), when enough media words and campaign can be bought to tell the feudal overlords what to do and what is the new trend in societal destruction in order to maximize their billion bonus packages in short term and leave the consequences to the future. /rant off

margalabargala 2y ago
> So, “previously a shoot would cost 5-figure […] now a kid can do it for $500”. In terms of 1:1 quality, I think that probably is the case here, at least for what is being measured. These photoshoots are for marketing. The yardstick against which they are being measured, is effectiveness at marketing, not critical acclaim or depth of plot. The format that most efficiently and effectively reaches the intended audience, is the "highest quality", which yes does mean that purchasing 20 videos from assorted freelance tiktok marketers is more than "1:1 quality" with a single video that costs 20x as much. I take your overall point but the primary purpose of marketing has always been to influence consumers. This is not the loss of some high art form.

by n_ary 2y ago

margalabargala 2y ago

> So, “previously a shoot would cost 5-figure […] now a kid can do it for $500”. In terms of 1:1 quality, I think that probably is the case here, at least for what is being measured. These photoshoots are for marketing. The yardstick against which they are being measured, is effectiveness at marketing, not critical acclaim or depth of plot. The format that most efficiently and effectively reaches the intended audience, is the "highest quality", which yes does mean that purchasing 20 videos from assorted freelance tiktok marketers is more than "1:1 quality" with a single video that costs 20x as much. I take your overall point but the primary purpose of marketing has always been to influence consumers. This is not the loss of some high art form.