Bruh. (Gaming)

by Vortech , A Fourth Wheel, Monday, March 30, 2026, 08:42 (1 hours, 41 minutes ago) @ Kermit

We can dismiss the loss of professional art as "Hollywood" and say art will survive because it is part of human expression, and say human audiences will always prefer human expression…but.

But, the reality is the people who decide what to fund rarely make that decision on what the audience will value most, but rather what is good enough. Nobody prefers narrow seats with less legroom, but that's what we got on planes because capitalism is not about making what is best, it is about maximizing value of a minimum viable product, and then milking the uber rich for upgrades. See also furniture that survives more than a couple years. See also washing machines that will never get repaired. Will human art become a product only available to the ultra wealthy? We see that dichotomy now with original vs. reproduction, but what will prevent it from becoming true of source, not just object?

But, plenty of people don't seem to care, or even prefer the absence of humanity. Self-checkout at the supermarket is less efficient than what we had before. It's not a surprise. Why would you think one person who does this once a week would be more efficient than 2 people working together all day. Not to mention you have one person for a whole set of issues, adding a delay. But even after it became clear that it was not about efficiency, people still chose it. The lines are literally longer for a worse experience and the store can happily fire those people and save money. I can only assume people prefer to avoid human contact. We have a generation that reports being literally afraid to talk to someone live on the phone. Hugely popular social media accounts are fabricated. Vocaloid singers are some of the biggest artists in Music.

But, nobody is born able to create at a high level. Someone needs to fund failure, because that's where people grow. If all of that stuff gets fed to the LLM, how will the future artists we will need in the future eat?

But, for all of the downsides of mixing art and commerce — many of them listed above — someone needs to pay for it. We had a time in Europe where art was not funded. We called it "The Dark Ages." It preceded the Rennesaince: a near Cambrian explosion of new ideas and forms of expression all kicked off by an idea sweeping the land that Humanism mattered, and that someone other than The Church could fund art. Not great for access if you're not a Medecci, but rocks in a pond make ripples. Art became a commerce in itself, but also got folded into all sorts of previously unconnected industries like fashion and architecture, furniture, pottery because someone funded the development of those skills. The objects of daily life, which constitute the vast majority of lived existence could be touched by the thoughtful intention of a person. Separating out functional design — free to be taken over by the soulless — and some other Art with a capitol "A" may feel like it's preserving the art that matters, but it's washing away most of the impact art has on our lives.

I agree with you on one thing — this isn't new. But it's not a direction I'm comfortable with, and it is a huge acceleration.