5 ms·

> Pieces like this all seem to be written with an unspoken assumption that anyone who wants to make a living wage from being an artist should be able to, as if

> Pieces like this all seem to be written with an unspoken assumption that anyone who wants to make a living wage from being an artist should be able to, as if it's some sort of right. Comments like yours seem to be written with the unspoken assumption that everyone's life should be hard unless they can please the market, which technology makes increasingly difficult. It's deeply anti-human. > AI has exacerbated this issue. Suddenly we're faced with the uncomfortable truth that much of human artwork is "mid" as the kids would say and people aren't willing to pay for songs, writing, and/or graphics the way they otherwise might. Is that news to anyone? But mid people exist, they worthy people, and they need to eat. AI is leading us to a dystopia where, unless you're in the top 0.1% of talent, the market has no use for you. And guess what happens to you then? > Anyway, I'm very curious if anyone has a good argument for why anyone who wishes to be an artist is owed a living wage for merely their desire to be recognized as economically valuable. Because that was the last promise the tech bros made: our tech will replace you, then you get to be an artist, be creative! Now it will take your creative job, and free you up for draining monitoring tasks and manual labor.

y-curious 7mo ago
People are only willing to pay for quality, mostly. I can’t just say that I’m a neurosurgeon because I want to be one. There has always been reward for merit and suffering for lack of merit. Nothing “anti human” about social Darwinism
- wolvesechoes 7mo ago
  > There has always been reward for merit and suffering for lack of merit. But conflating merit with economical value is very recent invention. > Nothing “anti human” about social Darwinism It didn't arise until rise of capitalism and bourgeoise (lack of) morality. For most of human history, and among countless cultures, social Darwinism wasn't the case. Peak ideology, btw.
  - lotsofpulp 7mo ago
    What is the definition of “social Darwinism”? I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? It seems to be a very, very recent phenomenon that simply selling goods and services can elevate one in the hierarchy, due to the advent of legal systems and policing (e.g. women’s rights).
    - defrost 7mo ago
      The social Darwinists that ran with nature red in tooth and claw and took survival of the best fitted to mean the physically fittest and most aggressively dominant win are the ones responsible for your impressions. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism They're very much a fork from the Alfred Russel Wallace / Charles Darwin theory of natural selection.
    - wolvesechoes 7mo ago
      > I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. > Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? There is no data to assert that.
      - lotsofpulp 7mo ago
        >As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not? Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand. >There is no data to assert that. What data could there be? It's not like the male leaders are going to write governing documents that state women will have fewer rights than men because we believe they will not be able to put up a sufficient fight. But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world, and women are physically weaker than men, and women would not choose to have fewer rights, then what other conclusion can be had?
- leviathant 7mo ago
  >People are only willing to pay for quality, mostly. lol, lmao even. In America at least, people pay for branding, and to give the impression that they're of a higher standing than they are - whether or not what they're buying is quality. Whether that's someone deeply in debt sporting Luis Vuitton, or a US President putting gold-painted foam ornamentation on the walls of the oval office. When it comes to the arts, or boutique fashion, or small scale manufacturing, people also pay for parasocial reasons - a variation on the branding angle. Storytelling about the founder, or the people doing the work, pictures of the space where a thing is being made, will give potential buyers a sense that they're paying for authenticity. That's why there are so many garbage ads on social media of a twenty-something talking about the old "one weird trick" that changed their routine... just so they can dropship you some garbage from Aliexpress with a 300% markup.
Unai 7mo ago
I share the same opinion that, just because someone is or wants to be an artist, doesn't mean they deserve to make a living wage out of it. But I'm not a capitalist, far from it. I actually think people shouldn't have to work at all if they don't want to, but we're just not at all there yet. From experience, this seems to be a very unpopular opinion. Everyone see themselves as hard working, and hate lazy people. But since a few years ago, all of the sudden, and mostly in relation to AI, everyone thinks all artists deserve to make a living. I find this hypocritical. If you're not providing enough value for others to give you money, that's just how things are, artist or not. Too bad the mediocre work of a machine is good enough. The day the system changes, and it will, will be for everyone, so no one is required to provide value to be able to feed themselves. Artists are not special just for declaring themselves an artist.
balamatom 7mo ago
>if anyone has a good argument >Because that was the last promise the tech bros made Tech bros are to be believed?! >And guess what happens to you then? Nothing as simple as you might hope for ;-)
adamtaylor_13 7mo ago
No, life is hard on its own unless you can please the market. Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket weaver should not make the same amount of money as a neurosurgeon?
- palmotea 7mo ago
  > Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket weaver should not make the same amount of money as a neurosurgeon? Because that's a hyperbolic exaggeration to make you feel fine about ignoring the plight of others? The machine should serve society, society shouldn't serve the machine. Unfortunately, what we have is far closer to the latter.
- wolvesechoes 7mo ago
  > No, life is hard on its own unless you can please the market It is funny when such claims are put with an aura of harsh, but brilliant insight, yet they are nothing more than expression of ideology.

y-curious 7mo ago

People are only willing to pay for quality, mostly. I can’t just say that I’m a neurosurgeon because I want to be one. There has always been reward for merit and suffering for lack of merit. Nothing “anti human” about social Darwinism

wolvesechoes 7mo ago
> There has always been reward for merit and suffering for lack of merit. But conflating merit with economical value is very recent invention. > Nothing “anti human” about social Darwinism It didn't arise until rise of capitalism and bourgeoise (lack of) morality. For most of human history, and among countless cultures, social Darwinism wasn't the case. Peak ideology, btw.
- lotsofpulp 7mo ago
  What is the definition of “social Darwinism”? I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? It seems to be a very, very recent phenomenon that simply selling goods and services can elevate one in the hierarchy, due to the advent of legal systems and policing (e.g. women’s rights).
  - defrost 7mo ago
    The social Darwinists that ran with nature red in tooth and claw and took survival of the best fitted to mean the physically fittest and most aggressively dominant win are the ones responsible for your impressions. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism They're very much a fork from the Alfred Russel Wallace / Charles Darwin theory of natural selection.
  - wolvesechoes 7mo ago
    > I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. > Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? There is no data to assert that.
    - lotsofpulp 7mo ago
      >As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not? Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand. >There is no data to assert that. What data could there be? It's not like the male leaders are going to write governing documents that state women will have fewer rights than men because we believe they will not be able to put up a sufficient fight. But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world, and women are physically weaker than men, and women would not choose to have fewer rights, then what other conclusion can be had?
leviathant 7mo ago
>People are only willing to pay for quality, mostly. lol, lmao even. In America at least, people pay for branding, and to give the impression that they're of a higher standing than they are - whether or not what they're buying is quality. Whether that's someone deeply in debt sporting Luis Vuitton, or a US President putting gold-painted foam ornamentation on the walls of the oval office. When it comes to the arts, or boutique fashion, or small scale manufacturing, people also pay for parasocial reasons - a variation on the branding angle. Storytelling about the founder, or the people doing the work, pictures of the space where a thing is being made, will give potential buyers a sense that they're paying for authenticity. That's why there are so many garbage ads on social media of a twenty-something talking about the old "one weird trick" that changed their routine... just so they can dropship you some garbage from Aliexpress with a 300% markup.

Unai 7mo ago

I share the same opinion that, just because someone is or wants to be an artist, doesn't mean they deserve to make a living wage out of it. But I'm not a capitalist, far from it. I actually think people shouldn't have to work at all if they don't want to, but we're just not at all there yet. From experience, this seems to be a very unpopular opinion. Everyone see themselves as hard working, and hate lazy people. But since a few years ago, all of the sudden, and mostly in relation to AI, everyone thinks all artists deserve to make a living. I find this hypocritical. If you're not providing enough value for others to give you money, that's just how things are, artist or not. Too bad the mediocre work of a machine is good enough. The day the system changes, and it will, will be for everyone, so no one is required to provide value to be able to feed themselves. Artists are not special just for declaring themselves an artist.

balamatom 7mo ago

>if anyone has a good argument >Because that was the last promise the tech bros made Tech bros are to be believed?! >And guess what happens to you then? Nothing as simple as you might hope for ;-)

adamtaylor_13 7mo ago

No, life is hard on its own unless you can please the market. Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket weaver should not make the same amount of money as a neurosurgeon?

palmotea 7mo ago
> Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket weaver should not make the same amount of money as a neurosurgeon? Because that's a hyperbolic exaggeration to make you feel fine about ignoring the plight of others? The machine should serve society, society shouldn't serve the machine. Unfortunately, what we have is far closer to the latter.
wolvesechoes 7mo ago
> No, life is hard on its own unless you can please the market It is funny when such claims are put with an aura of harsh, but brilliant insight, yet they are nothing more than expression of ideology.