Comment by volkercraig
1 day ago
This feels like one of those tropes that keeps showing up whenever new tech comes out. At the advent of recorded music, im sure buskers and performers were complaing that live music is dead forever. Stage actors were probably complaining that film killed plays. Heck, I bet someome even complained that video itself killed the radio star. Yet here we are, hundreds of years later, live music is still desirable, plays still happen, and faceless voices are still around, theyre just called v-tubers and podcasters.
> This feels like one of those tropes that keeps showing up whenever new tech comes out.
And this itself is another tired trope. Just because you can pattern match and observe that things repeatedly went a certain way in the past, doesn't mean that all future applications of said pattern will play out the same way. On occasion entire industries have been obliterated without a trace by technological advancement.
We can also see that there must be some upper ceiling on what humans in general are capable of - hit that and no new jobs will be created because humans simply won't be capable of the new tasks. (Unless we fuse with the machines or genetically engineer our brains or etc but I'm choosing to treat those eventualities as out of scope.)
Give me one aspect in which that has actually happened? I'm wracking my brains but can't think of one. We are a weird species in that even if we could replace ourselves our fascination with ourselves means that we don't ever do it. Cars and bicycles have replaced our ability to travel at great and small distances and yet we still have track events culminating in the olympics.
Sure, things continue to persist as a hobby, a curiosity, a bespoke luxury, or the like. But that's not at all the same thing as an industry. Only the latter is relevant if we're talking about the economy and employment prospects and making a living and such.
It's a bit tricky to come up with concrete examples on the spot, in particular because drawing a line around a given industry or type of work is largely subjective. I could point to blacksmithing and someone could object that we still have metalworkers. But we don't have individual craftsmen hammering out pieces anymore. Someone might still object that an individual babysitting a CNC machine is analogous but somehow it feels materially different to me.
Leather workers are another likely example. To my mind that's materially different from a seamstress, a job that itself has had large parts of the tasks automated.
Horses might be a good example. Buggies and carriages replaced by the engine. Most of the transportation counterparts still exist but I don't think mechanics are really a valid counterpart to horse tenders and all the (historic) economic activity associated with that. Sure a few rich people keep race horses but that's the sort of luxury I was referring to above. The number of related job positions is a tiny fraction of what it was historically and exists almost solely for the purpose of entertaining rich people.
Historically the skill floor only crept up at a fairly slow rate so the vast majority of those displaced found new sectors to work in. But the rate of increase appears to have picked up to an almost unbelievable clip (we're literally in the midst of redefining the roles of software developers of all things, one of the highest skilled "bulk" jobs out there). It should be obvious that if things keep up the way they've been going then we're going to hit a ceiling for humans as a species not so long from now.
Tin Pan Alley is the historical industry from before recording: composers sold sheet music and piano rolls to publishers, who sold them to working musicians. The ASCAP/BMI mafia would shake down venues and make sure they were paying licensing fees.
Recorded music and radio obviously reduced the demand for performers, which reduced demand for sheets.
umm, I don't know if you've seen the current state of trying to make a living with music but It's widely accepted as dire. Touring is a loss leader, putting out music for free doesn't pay, stream counts payouts are abysmally low. No one buys songs.
All that is before the fact that streaming services are stuffing playlists with AI generated music to further reduce the payouts to artists.
> Yet here we are, hundreds of years later, live music is still desirable, plays still happen, and faceless voices are still around...
Yes all those things still happen, but it's increasingly untenable to make a living through it.
Is it though? Think about being a musician 200 years ago. In 1826 you needed to essentially be nobility or nobility-adjacent just to be able to touch an instrument let alone make a living from it. 100 years later, 1926 the barrier to entry was still sky high, nobody could make and distribute recordings without extensive investment. Nowadays it's not uncommon for a 17 year old to download some free composer software, sign up for a few accounts and distribute their music to an audience of millions. It's not easy to do, sure, but there is still opportunity that never existed. If you were to take at random a 20 year old from the general population in 1826, 1923, 1943, 1953, 1973, 83, etc, would you REALLY say that any of them have a BETTER opportunity than today?
Artists were saying this even before streaming, though, much less AI.
I listen pretty exclusively to metal, and a huge chunk of that is bands that are very small. I go to shows where they headliners stick around at the bar and chat with people. Not saying this to be a hipster - I listen to plenty of "mainstream" stuff too - but to show that it's hard to get smaller than this when it comes to people wanting to make a living making music.
None of them made any money off of Spotify or whatever before AI. They probably don't notice a difference, because they never paid attention to the "revenue" there either.
But they do pay attention to Bandcamp. Because Bandcamp has given them more ability to make money off the actual sale of music than they've had in their history - they don't need to rely on a record deal with a big label. They don't need to hope that the small label can somehow get their name out there.
For some genres, some bands, it's more viable than ever before to make a living. For others, yeah, it's getting harder and harder.
But this is different? Wholesale copying of copyrighted works and packaging it up and allowing it to be generated. It's not remotely reasonable