FishFace

Is that on the 17% joke rate?

Right that's why no other country had dreams of home ownership.

American exceptionalism really did a number on you guys!

You just haven't tried it with the latest release of this fork of Plasma.

That would be great in an ideal world, but there's just no reason to think that they should be able to because the two concepts are simply orthogonal. What you can make a living off is determined by what other people need and want (with the exception of farming), which is completely different from what you want to do. Fundamentally, no individual is going to pay you (or give you food, or whatever) in return for doing something that they don't value.

The only way to get away from that paradigm is UBI or something like it.

Would I prefer to live in a world where my shitty abilities in music, art and writing were enough to keep myself fed and clothed? Yes! But we don't and AI isn't changing that. If we want to move towards that it's economic changes we need to make.

Note that this is still true even if you a well-funded arts council that funds artists as a public good, because while you might not be a slave to what individuals or "the masses" want, you're still a slave to what the arts council is willing to fund - what it sees as a public good. And if people as a whole simply don't value some forms of art that much, there's a very limited extent to which public funding will make up for that. If that's too abstract, if my art passion is recording classical music arranged for the human butt, I'm going to struggle to sell that to ordinary people, as well as struggle to get a grant to fund my passion.

Fundamentally I think this question arises because there is a general sense that people ought to be able to make a living from art. But this has - except for very few people - never been the case, because lots of people enjoy making art, but society as a whole does not value it highly enough to support all those people in doing it.

Artisanal things are great, but because they take so much more time for a person to make, fewer people can have them - realised in our society as them being more expensive, but to be clear this is due to the fundamental issue of it not being possible to make as many for the same input of human time.

So, is it worth it to have a table made by a master craftsman versus a table produced in an IKEA factory, when the societal result is that some people just can't afford a table - or they can, but the tradeoff is they can't have something else? We are not a post-scarcity society, these are real questions.

Is it worth rewinding the green revolution and starving half the world population who depends on the higher crop yields due to modern agriculture?

The whole point is that you can still make things. What you cannot do is something 99% of people have never been able to do, that is: feed yourself by doing something that you would still do if feeding yourself didn't depend on it.

Well, kinda. Their cost of production is lower partly because they don't have to pay an artist enough to feed themselves. Your costs are always lower when you don't pay for stuff that those playing by the rules do.

Ok but this is a joke, not an instruction on how to behave in real life.

Oh sorry lol

What makes you think those artists are going to be replaced by AI though? I don't think people who buy art off a local artist are gonna go "you know what, let's just print off this Midjourney shit"? I don't at all.

I actually don't think most people put art on their walls at all. The people who do, value a human connection in the art, not just something that looks cool (if you don't care about the ai look).

They're taking advantage of the ability to do so with modern cameras and TVs because a dark look communicates something - a dark mood for example. It contrasts with other shows or scenes.

It stands out to me when a scene is supposed to be at night but obviously has a 100ft light tower just off camera. Toning it down looks good.

Yeah, many differences, one of which is that the further employs far more people. Another is that the latter is not going to dissolve itself to be replaced by AI when the former fires artists to do that.

There is already very little market for the kind of art we all care about, so maybe we should worry less about the marketability of art.

What about the rest of my comment or hell , sentence 🙄