Comment by WhyOhWhyQ

Comment by WhyOhWhyQ a day ago

We're about to witness a fundamental shift in the human experience. Some time in the near future there will not be a single act of creation you can do that isn't trivial compared to the result of typing "make cool thing please now" into the computer. And your position is to add to the problem because with your policy anything I create should get chucked into the LLM grinder by any and everybody. How do I get my human body to commit to doing hard things with that prospect at hand? This is the end of happiness.

redwood a day ago

This is why I love making bread

Reply View 1 reply

GPerson a day ago

We can’t all be bread making hedonists. Some of us want these finite lives to mean more than living constantly in the moment in a state of baking zen.

Reply View | 0 replies

card_zero a day ago

I don't know, that sounds like the basic argument for copyright: "I created a cool thing, therefore I should be able to milk it for the rest of my life". Without this perk, creatives are less motivated. Would that be bad? I guess an extreme version would be a world where you can only publish anonymously and with no tangible reward.

Reply View 2 replies

jkhdigital a day ago

I hate to paint with such a broad brush, but I’d venture that “creatives” are not primarily motivated by profit. It is almost a truism that money corrupts the creative endeavour.

Reply View | 1 reply
- card_zero a day ago
  
  There are various ways to turn creativity into money, even without publishing any kind of artwork. Basically all skilled jobs and entrepreneurial enterprises require creativity. And if you do have an artwork, you can still seek profit through acclaim, even without copyright: interviews, public appearances. Artists once had patrons - but that tends to put aristocrats in control of art.
  So money will motivate a lot of the creativity that goes on.
  Meanwhile, if you dabble in some kind of art or craft while working in a factory to make ends meet, that kind of limits you to dabbling, because you'll have no time to do it properly. Money also buys equipment and helpers, sometimes useful.
  On the other hand, yes, it ruins the art. There's a 10cc song about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_Art%27s_Sake_(song)
  Though, this reminds me of an interesting aside: the origin of the phrase "art for art's sake" was not about money, but about aesthetics. It meant something like "stop pushing opinions, just show me a painting".
  
  Reply View | 0 replies