AI and Content Creation

Creative people with ambition and limited resources make good things today without this technology. All this does is accelerate the rate at which low quality "content" is produced by people that have no interest in learning a craft, without attribution and without compensation for the people that have made the effort and whose works train these models.

That's fine, and you can still consume other's peoples content. Nothing has to change for you.However Billions of people are creative and had just lacked the time, energy finances, to investment in the act of being creative.People have huge discussions on what they'd change or fix in tv shows, what worked and what didn't.Now we can empower them as well.

Content creators are still consumers. An artist can still read poetry, go the theatre, etc. So, if the vast majority of population goes into creative endeavors, the demand for creative labor isn't going to increase; all of the content creators are still content consumers.

It's worth noting that a big part of what hit Big Print and Big Music was democratization, not just SV. Where it used to be only a few people could publish blogs and make music to the quality of a Real Recording Artist, regular Joe's and Jane's all over (and a number of big name DJ's) all got started making shit with Garageband and the like. Audio editors used to be exclusive software and required beefy (for the time) computers to use, now? A low end Macbook can easily stand

Like the hot take but it is needlessly negative because it doesn’t go far enough.You could make the same argument about musical instruments, or being able to record and playback music, dj tools, etc.I think what you get is the power law distribution for tons of content. Some of the stuff is still mega valuable, but distribution just gets more and more important and it’s harder and harder to break through. This is what the “democratization” of any previously difficulty-gated endeavor does.<

This is a huge, well written article. I wish I found such an article everyday, but they are rare. I disagree with some of the points the author makes. It is clear that he is biased towards content creators and against sharing, but at least he mentions the opposing points of view and tries to be inclusive.It might be true that music and media have been squeezed. I find it surprising, because a few years ago there were some articles stating record profits. But let's say it is true - many t

I appreciate this, but also wonder if we are in the middle of a transformation where some forms of creativity (note: not necessarily engineering) are being "flattened". Everyone can output beautiful pixels, beautiful audio, beautiful token sequences.Maybe it's like the transformation of local-to-global that traveling musicians felt in the early 1900s: now what they do can be experienced for free, over the radio waves, by anyone with a radio.YouTube showed us that video needn

Computers and the Internet have democratized culture in a way never seen before. This is both good and bad. Newspapers are dying. Television is dying. Hollywood is dying. Books are dying. Now we have people co-creating on blogs, YouTube, self-publishing, and fan-fiction websites. The production quality is certainly down from the peak of professional culture, but software tools are helping individual creators gain an edge.The consumer is absolutely winning right now. There is a lifetime of fre

hi Michael, thanks!considering the 1% rule, do you think our culture of media consumption is in our nature or something we've created? is it a trend? do you think there will be more room in the future for companies that serve amateur producers? can we create more producers?sorry for so many question marks. it's a single question- poorly formed. :)

It's hard to see how there will be room for profit as this all advancesThere will be two classes of media:- Generated, consumed en-masse by uncreative, uninspired individuals looking for cheap thrill- Human created, consumed by discerning individuals seeking out real human talent and expression. Valuing it based merely on the knowledge that a biological brain produced (or helped produce) it.I tend to suspect that the latter will grow in value, not diminish, as time progresses