This is only true in markets in which increased efficiency = more success. Many markets do not function this way; e.g., the art market. Making more paintings more efficiently does not make you a better-known artist. In many cases, it actually hurts you.
I would bet that more markets become like the art market: dependent on "intangibles", nepotism, personality, and other qualities that have nothing to do with efficiency, and therefore, won't benefit that much from AI tools.
Very good. There will be an increasing demand for pure human beings. Those who can practice divine creativity, due to their pure personality, body and spirit. The "intangibles".
>Many markets do not function this way; e.g., the art market. Making more paintings more efficiently does not make you a better-known artist. In many cases, it actually hurts you.
Art is also a good argument for where this is a good argument. More art =/= more success, but the ability for an artist to quickly make good art == more success. Be it for iteration or production (especially 3d models). You still can't guarantee success, but if you can use less artists to make more art it tips the scales.
No, I don’t think that is true at all in the traditional fine arts market, which is what my comment was referencing. Scarcity is a major factor and putting out tons of AI-generated art is basically the opposite work process of the highest-priced artists.
I see. I was referring more to media arts. animation, games, movies. These could have huge boons from letting AI polish up the bases or fill in somegaps.
I would bet that more markets become like the art market: dependent on "intangibles", nepotism, personality, and other qualities that have nothing to do with efficiency, and therefore, won't benefit that much from AI tools.