Its the first player past the goal post problem, the first alchemist will crash the gold market but he will be insanely rich. You can see this with advertisers, when a new approach is found they all rush to it. They know its going to kill it soon, but the first few will get that sweet sweet revenue before the public catches on.
AI art will poison the well, but someone will make the few bucks that can be extracted before it happens.
Always thought it was a strange objection. Obviously the argument proves too much: by the same logic there is no point in inventing or operating say a wheel; the price of pots will just fall to the price of clay. Of course that isn't true, you make money hand over fist until reaching some kind of perfect competition again once everyone else catches up, at which point it becomes merely a living.
Look at the history of art itself to find several movements where artists make the point that difficulty in production is not the key feature of art. You might even find proof that human connection and humanity are not the key features. In fact, it's pretty hard to nail down an objective definition of art, but we can say what it doesn't have to be.
Gold doesn't share this nebulous sort of definition. Same with diamonds, what's their price now that we have figured out the "alchemy" for those?
What is it about these sorts of questions that escape those that write articles like these? Better yet, if the authors did ask these sorts of questions, could they write at all? Put another way, must there be a lack of depth in order for these sorts of ideas to be properly viral?
Maybe my feed just sucks. Someone please tell me where I can read what I describe. Thanks in advance.
I think gold was mentioned to give the nod to alchemy.
Diamonds are an interesting example. My understanding is that synthetic diamonds are largely used in industrial process (esp. abrasives). Synthetic diamonds in jewelry are cheaper alternatives, but jewelers can still sell natural diamonds for a premium. I think jewelry diamond prices are down in recent years, but not a crash. I think the market largely split.
The value of diamond jewelry feels quite nebulous to me. I remember looking at diamonds when picking an engagement ring and the jeweler had me look through the loope to examine microscopic imperfections, trying to upsell me on a different stone. Realizing the absurdity of using a microscope to assess jewelery which would otherwise only ever be seen by naked eye, the illusion of value broke and I purchased none.
The resale value of any diamond jewellery should tell all about real value of it. Unless it is actually rare and special piece my understanding is that value drops massively moment the payment clears.
Compare this to gold, silver etc. which do have labour, but still difference is mostly that and some buy/sell margin.
Artificial means of creating gold has not made it less scarce. Diamonds on the other hand should be less expensive, its value is based on proving your love to someone. Diamond resale value sucks. Diamond hasn't changed at all in the process.
From the school of thought that brought you "No one will buy mass produced goods" and "They won't believe it if it's not true" comes another idea that won't age well...
when music became easier to make in the 90s and 00s due to computers, and you no longer needed studio access, everybody in their bedroom started flooding the market with songs. yet music remains valuable.
today instagram is flooded with ai videos, many extremely obvious (cats doing things), yet these videos are highly popular, some have 400!!! mil views, millions of likes
author is confused, thinks music means just beethoven or Pink Floyd or whatever he considers "good music"
> AI will never fully displace creatives, because the moment AI can mass-produce any kind of creative work at scale, that work will stop being worth producing in the first place.
literally confusing art with elitism and gate-keeping. might as well require "artist degree from an accredited institution"
> when music became easier to make in the 90s and 00s due to computers, and you no longer needed studio access, everybody in their bedroom started flooding the market with songs. yet music remains valuable.
Rick Beato and others have argued that this flooding (a single day in 2025 has as many songs uploaded to Spotify as an entire catalog-year from the 1980s) along with ubiquitous, cheap access to millions of songs per month vs. saving up for a single album (and actively listening to it in its entirety) has devalued music quite a bit. It seems to be becoming more ephemeral and disposable.
There was a real world example akin to the alchemists getting their wish of making gold and finding out that that destroyed the value of it -- Spanish colonialism. Spain brought back tons of silver and gold from the New World and instead of making them wealthy it crashed their economy by hyperinflation.
Readit News
AI art will poison the well, but someone will make the few bucks that can be extracted before it happens.
Gold doesn't share this nebulous sort of definition. Same with diamonds, what's their price now that we have figured out the "alchemy" for those?
What is it about these sorts of questions that escape those that write articles like these? Better yet, if the authors did ask these sorts of questions, could they write at all? Put another way, must there be a lack of depth in order for these sorts of ideas to be properly viral?
Maybe my feed just sucks. Someone please tell me where I can read what I describe. Thanks in advance.
Diamonds are an interesting example. My understanding is that synthetic diamonds are largely used in industrial process (esp. abrasives). Synthetic diamonds in jewelry are cheaper alternatives, but jewelers can still sell natural diamonds for a premium. I think jewelry diamond prices are down in recent years, but not a crash. I think the market largely split.
The value of diamond jewelry feels quite nebulous to me. I remember looking at diamonds when picking an engagement ring and the jeweler had me look through the loope to examine microscopic imperfections, trying to upsell me on a different stone. Realizing the absurdity of using a microscope to assess jewelery which would otherwise only ever be seen by naked eye, the illusion of value broke and I purchased none.
Compare this to gold, silver etc. which do have labour, but still difference is mostly that and some buy/sell margin.
today instagram is flooded with ai videos, many extremely obvious (cats doing things), yet these videos are highly popular, some have 400!!! mil views, millions of likes
author is confused, thinks music means just beethoven or Pink Floyd or whatever he considers "good music"
> AI will never fully displace creatives, because the moment AI can mass-produce any kind of creative work at scale, that work will stop being worth producing in the first place.
literally confusing art with elitism and gate-keeping. might as well require "artist degree from an accredited institution"
Rick Beato and others have argued that this flooding (a single day in 2025 has as many songs uploaded to Spotify as an entire catalog-year from the 1980s) along with ubiquitous, cheap access to millions of songs per month vs. saving up for a single album (and actively listening to it in its entirety) has devalued music quite a bit. It seems to be becoming more ephemeral and disposable.
> When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden’s green and gold,
> Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
> And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
> Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: ‘It’s pretty, but is it Art?’
— Rudyard Kipling, The Conundrum of the Workshops [1]
[1] https://poets.org/poem/conundrum-workshops
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2045/the-gold-of-the-co...
I wonder if there was a surge in red clothing immediately after... perhaps followed by the wealthy disdaining it.
There’s a lot more photos now, most of them mediocre, but some exceptional.
It does become harder to filter great photography from noise.
Deleted Comment