Yes, and as Howey explains in TFA those things might be good for consumers and creators who create for fun, but they are not good for people who create in order to earn a living.

▲

argentinian an hour ago | parent [-]

you are not taking into account that creators can be funded in different ways. For example like in Patreon.

You can give part of your money to fund a creator that wants to create in order to earn a living.

I believe that is better when people create for fun. If they need to create to earn a living they are forced to create and that is not the best incentive to create. Fun is a better incentive

▲

zbentley an hour ago | parent [-]

> I believe that is better when people create for fun. If they need to create to earn a living they are forced to create and that is not the best incentive to create. Fun is a better incentive

I'm not sure that's true (thousands of famous creative works from the Sistine Chapel to the Benin Bronzes were created on commission/for remuneration), but even if it is, how are creators gonna eat? If the answer is "get a day job", I think that excludes a lot of folks from practically being able to create things. Patreon is not a great way to pay the bills for all but the most famous and popular people on it.

▲

argentinian 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

With IA, creation is cheap. It's inevitable that automation would make some jobs disappear. There's no solution, less people will be able to earn a living for creating art, I think.

What do you think about this?

	▲	zbentley 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think that's probably at least somewhat true, and regrettable/something to be worked on in your community, and a very different statement from > [it] is better when people create for fun. If they need to create to earn a living they are forced to create and that is not the best incentive to create. Fun is a better incentive