Will We Pay for Art Mostly Created by AI? I Consider the Question With Analysts Robert Scoble & Jeremiah Owyang

So according to my super unscientific survey, nearly 75% of respondents say we will soon pay for premium entertainment created by generative AI -- "soon" being within the next 10 years.

And this is no longer a theoretical question. Shortly after I launched my casual poll, the Writers Guild of America went on strike, with one of its stipulations to Hollywood studios being a curb on AI in content: 

The guild also wants regulation of artificial intelligence. According to the guild’s document, it is proposing that AI “can’t write or rewrite literary material,” and can’t be “used as source material.” Variety previously reported that the guild’s proposal was that AI material would not be “considered” as either literary or source material. The AMPTP agreed only to study the issue, according to the guild.

Despite (or because?) of that, some Hollywood executives are actively wondering if screenwriters can be replaced by AI:

“The worry is that down the road you can see some producer or executive trying to use one of these tools to do a job that a writer really needs to be doing.” [says Big Fish and Aladdin writer John August]

That’s already happening, according to Amy Webb, founder and CEO of Future Today Institute, which does long-range scenario planning and consultation for Fortune 500 companies and Hollywood creatives. She notes, “I’ve had a couple of higher-level people ask, if a strike does happen, how quickly could they spin up an AI system to just write the scripts? And they’re serious.”

That's a seriously dumb idea unless you want ChatGPT to produce what is designed to be "the most mediocre web content you can imagine". Many Hollywood execs are probably fine with that, but I doubt many consumers would, say, keep buying movie tickets if "Screenplay by ChatGPT 5.0" was in the credits.

I say this because despite much buzz, we've yet to see any evidence of consumers spending actual money on content primarily created by AI.

Yes we all enjoy fun AI-produced memes like the video below, but that's free disposable content. Unless the AI is powered and curated by a well-known human artist, we probably won't. I would happily buy a print of Nettrice Gaskin's Deep Dream-driven portrait of Kendrick Lamar -- but only because in the end, it's by Dr. Gaskins.

My own experience in games and metaverse platforms also make me think the human artist is not going away. Video games are completely digital artifacts, but gamers still know and celebrate leading developers like Hideo Kojima by name. Similarly, Bryn Oh's metaverse art would quickly become meaningless, if we didn't know that an anonymous but very human Canadian artist created it.

That's my own take at least. For a contrast, I contacted two of the biggest generative AI boosters in my social network -- analysts Robert Scoble and Jeremiah Owyang -- for their own perspective:

"Some might be attracted to an all-AI approach just as many might be attracted to an all-human approach," Scoble tells me. "I would certainly view a lot of it."

Jeremiah's take was also in the "yes and" category:

"Yes, humans will pay for perceived value, including content that is mostly or entirely created by AI. Many popular movies use AI for some or most of their content. The amount of AI-generated content will increase as more customers become willing to pay for this new type of entertainment, which challenges traditional media creation. However, an opposite reaction always occurs; a new form of premium content focusing on authentic, raw human-created footage will also find its market."

Strongly agree on his last point: If I were a filmmaker, game/metaverse developer, visual artist, or musician starting out right now, I'd be focusing on creating the most low tech, human-centric content possible.

Comments

[Luther Weymann]

Humans are lazy and not so intelligent, and if they can get the software to do something so they don’t have to think about it, they will turn that responsibility over to computers. In a couple of decades, 100% of what you read in the media will be AI-generated, and it will be a government-controlled narrative. All music you hear will be created by AI, and the artist that caused it will not tell and will take credit for the lyrics or music if they can get away with it. Some TV stations will replace humans with AI-powered human-like robots that we will sit and watch like they were real people. Classrooms will not be taught by humans anymore. The students will receive their education and indoctrination from AI through a TV screen with life-like robots. Your friendship circle will reduce in size, and you will count AI robots within your family circle. You will no longer need to drive a car; that will be done for you. Humans will no longer prepare food at restaurants, and street-side stores will go away as touch-screen home delivery replaces real stores because of the danger of going outside due to crime. More cities will lose police until only AI robots can police large cities, and laws will be passed to protect the robots. All this is coming, and as long as we are placated with the usual false promises, we will do nothing to slow or stop it.

[Adeon]

Most millenials and older will easily get swindled by AI. Those that grew up with it from a younger age can spot it far more easily and won't be so fooled. It will be a very generational thing, just like the Baby Boomer generation is often confused by modern technology.

[Nadeja]

I think buying content that is mostly made by AI will eventually have no point. The smarter the AI gets, the less human input and effort is needed. But goods and services are valued because of scarcity, which means that people want them more than they are available. Creative content, even though it can sell infinite copies, is still valuable because only a few can produce a good book, let alone a Nebula prize book or an Oscar-worthy movie. If everyone can create content by just asking an AI, then it becomes common and effortless like drawing a stick man. It’s like selling ice to penguins in Antarctica or paying for bottled air when you can breathe for free. Imagine one day asking an AI to create a love story movie for you: ‘GPT-N, please make me a romantic film with […]’ and it says: ‘Sure, here is a masterpiece for you, get ready to cry’. And everyone can do that. Then, the scarcity value of creative content would decrease, and so would its price and appeal. So where would be the scarcity and value to pay? If it’s a service, you would pay the monthly fee to the few companies that provide such AI service. If it can run locally, you would pay those few companies that produce hardware capable of running such AI locally.

However:
1. I think art has a value also as shared culture, other than entertainment.
2. Artists also use art to express themselves.
3. Despite industrialization and digital art, handcrafted item can still be appreciated. So grab your canvas and brushes!

[Clara Seller]

This is sad. Humans aren't lazy and unintelligent. Humans are an incredible species that desperately need a massive spiritual awakening before we are completely extinguished. AI is so small. But when it's all that we are fed, it seems so much more important. Our music, our literature, our art comes from our spirit. We're only as small as we believe we are. We know at some level what is genuine and what is fake.

There are forces at work intent on making us very small and easily manipulated. It's profitable. We are massively being lied to through our technology. We need to wake up and see we are in a prison. We aren't really at an end. We need to dig deep and realize what it means to actually be free, because we aren't anywhere near a place of freedom.