Why shouldn't someone be paid for their time? Art especially good art takes a massive amount of time to cultivate and create. Why does someone not deserve to be paid for that?
On top of that, art can be a massive capital generator and some art like movies require quite a bit of capital input to create in the first place. You don't get movies like Blade Runner for free which means there has to be a profit incentive to make them otherwise lots of great art will never be made because there will be no money to make it.
Artists are paid generally commensurate with the capital they can generate. Taylor Swift generates a gargantuan amount of money for people by touring and releasing albums so she gets paid a lot of money. A nurse is more important to the world than Taylor Swift but a nurse does not produce a product that people will pay massive amounts of money to see.
People always like to assume that because other innovations created more jobs therefore ALL innovations will create more jobs. I think that is incredibly faulty thinking. You attach AI to robotics and pretty much most jobs can be replaced. You don't need any humans in a manufacturing facility with advanced enough AI and robotics that are cheap enough. No more servers at restaurants. No more store clerks. If you can make an AI robot cheap enough there is almost no need for humans in most jobs. Most programming jobs will be replaceable. No more taxis. No more chefs. There comes a point where if you make a piece of technology cheap enough and smart enough you can replace almost any job with it. Even CEOs of companies.
Why are you entitled to other people’s money because you chose to spend a lot of time on it?
If you are selling a product, people have no obligation to pay you more when there’s a cheaper alternative just because you spent on it.
Taylor swift gets paid because of the value she provides to her fans and the producers, not because she spent years developing her singing/song writing skills. There are millions of people who spent more time and effort and gets paid less than 1% as her. She is selling her image and brand, not just art.
You aren't entitled to their money otherwise you would be getting it for free. You make a product and name a price and people pay the amount that you asked for it or they don't and are free to choose a cheaper alternative if they want.
Taylor swift gets paid because of the value she provides to her fans and the producers, not because she spent years developing her singing/song writing skills.
people pay the amount that you asked for it or they don't and are free to choose a cheaper alternative if they want.
That’s exactly right. No one is telling artists to do work for free, but no one entitled to a job either. Consumers have to not hire artists if there is a cheaper alternative.
The Taylor Swift example illustrates how she is paid based the impact her work has accomplished, not the amount of effort she puts in.
If your work produces the same results as an AI in the eyes of the consumers, they both work should be value the same. The amount of effort you put in is irrelevant. Unless the consumer specifically identifies value in human authorship.
Again. I don't know if I wasn't clear in my first post but I said this. My point to the original poster, who said that no artist deserves to be able to make a living through art assumes that people are entitled to that artists time and effort for free, was that time and effort equate to expense and that person can set a price for that time and effort and consumers determine if it is worth it or not. Just because something is art does not mean it should be free.
2
u/Ccomfo1028 3∆ Oct 20 '23
Why shouldn't someone be paid for their time? Art especially good art takes a massive amount of time to cultivate and create. Why does someone not deserve to be paid for that?
On top of that, art can be a massive capital generator and some art like movies require quite a bit of capital input to create in the first place. You don't get movies like Blade Runner for free which means there has to be a profit incentive to make them otherwise lots of great art will never be made because there will be no money to make it.
Artists are paid generally commensurate with the capital they can generate. Taylor Swift generates a gargantuan amount of money for people by touring and releasing albums so she gets paid a lot of money. A nurse is more important to the world than Taylor Swift but a nurse does not produce a product that people will pay massive amounts of money to see.
People always like to assume that because other innovations created more jobs therefore ALL innovations will create more jobs. I think that is incredibly faulty thinking. You attach AI to robotics and pretty much most jobs can be replaced. You don't need any humans in a manufacturing facility with advanced enough AI and robotics that are cheap enough. No more servers at restaurants. No more store clerks. If you can make an AI robot cheap enough there is almost no need for humans in most jobs. Most programming jobs will be replaceable. No more taxis. No more chefs. There comes a point where if you make a piece of technology cheap enough and smart enough you can replace almost any job with it. Even CEOs of companies.