Comment by nine_k

Art is materially different from science and technology. Great art is known to emerge from limitations. Art is full of limitations that are self-imposed for that purpose, like the meter and rhyme in poetry, geometry and color in painting, etc. Art is primarily about processing and evoking emotions.

Science requires much more concentration on abstract thinking, loading a much larger context, if you will. It's counterproductive to do it while busy with something else. It overworks you all right, and it demands much more rigor than art.

All revolutionary new technology is initially inefficient, and requires spending a lot of time and money on finding efficient solutions. First electronic computers were terribly unwieldy, expensive, and unreliable. This equally applies to first printing presses, first steam engines, first aircraft, first jet engines, first lasers, first LLMs (arguably still applies). It's really hard to advance technology without spending large amounts of resources without any profit, or a guarantee thereof, for years and years. This requires a large cache of such resources, prepared to be burnt on R&D.

It's investment into far future vs predictable present, VC vs day trading.