>>29718090
>without the original artists work the ai wouldnt exist
sure i'll concede that
>i wish not everything was a product to be sold, and at the same time i think artists should be able to live off of their art
well if the art being produced is good enough for a voluntary exchange of money then sure. but should artists be subsidised to live just because they're an artist who can't sell their work? no, because that requires taking money at gunpoint from somebody who would not pay for their services in their first place
>you're arguing for the arts to be automated in the name of economics. literally just train on the life work of thousands of artists and then we wont need them any more, sounds great
i think you're beginning to slip on the slope of fallacy: i don't believe the audience is mutually exclusive, and there are still things AI can never do like hold a live performance
>i want to sit with my friends and make music but now it costs £600 a week to exist because someone killed someone for their land at some point and then made it illegal to kill people to take their stuff
that's a multifaceted issue: the covid money printing is the primary reason why your purchasing power has been greatly eroded,
culturally society is much less interested in the arts nowadays due to the spiritual malaise from widespread nihilism and the jewish dominance in the agents/production/publishing top echelon of any artistic industry means you have to fall in line with their thinking or you're not getting in
>>29718111
i dunno if i would go so far to say art is porn
>>29718195
>ai isnt going to put people out of work because its better, it will be because its cheaper
we're getting to the interesting part: how would you force audiences to pay for the most expensive option? in general you can't, people are always out to look out for themselves first and foremost. people love to talk about supporting artists but when it comes time to pay very little do unless there's value to do so
