> is that of lowering the bar of acceptability
Yes.
> counterbalancing that with the (potential) savings
No. It's all about personalization. Even with all the money in the world you couldn't sit a filming crew, VFX specialist, foley artist, and voice actors next to every user of your app, ready to produce new content in 60 seconds.
I don't get why this keeps being framed as a labor thing, it's unlocking genuinely new forms of interactive media.
What kind of personalisations are you hoping to see with this tech?
> I don't get why this keeps being framed as a labor thing
It's inextricably linked with labour. That doesn't mean that labour is only factor but it's an important one nonetheless.
You write a sentence and get out media... what more personalization are you looking for?
And no, labor is not a factor in the way you tried to frame it.
There is absolutely no one tying up $250,000 in GPUs to let users spit out a funny clip of Sam Altman jumping over a chair because they think that's a smart way a way to get out of paying artists.
>I don't get why this keeps being framed as a labor thing, it's unlocking genuinely new forms of interactive media.
Because it directly impacts people's ability to earn a living. If you truly don't understand this, I think you should spend some time talking to people who are impacted by it. Artists, and so on. Seriously, this is a head-in-the-sand take.
It's very bizarre to act this is being done in order to replace artists.
I build gen AI for entertainment: I don't build to replace anyone, and if my product gets eyeballs existing creators can't, it's because it gives the consumer something they wanted to see in the world.
Past that you're just complaining that consumers don't want what you made.
Myopic view. Just because your motives may be pure and your greed may be a non-issue doesn't mean that multinational corporations who have aligned themselves with fascist regimes (Meta, Alibiba, etc -- point is that they're demonstrably amoral/immoral) do not intend to exploit the tech to its fullest extent.
However having said that, the intention/aim need not be to deliberately replace creatives. That is not the claim I am making or that anyone in this thread or general public discourse is claiming. The minimal claim is simply that the commodification of art decreases the value and employability of people who perform the same task as the AI. It is also not limited to artists. It is all-encompassing. If an employer can now use AI instead of a copywriter, they will often do that -- big and small business alike. The same can be said for many niche fields which previously required specialized education or training.
I am not saying this from an Anti-AI perspective. I own an AI startup.
But use your big boy brain. It is clear that the commodification of intelligence has a downward market pressure on the market value (which is the PERCEIVED value of an employee in the eyes of the EMPLOYER) for many, if not eventually ALL jobs/roles.
I like how you start with "myopic view" the tell me to use my "big boy brain" to see the ease of creation across the board going down as a negative thing.
The purpose of the society was never to pay money to people, and if we figure out how to get grains of sand to replace skilled labor, there's no amount of greed that can outpace what it will do for humanity.