Title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGJcF4bLKd4

I agree: “the test of a vocation is the love of it’s drudgery” … China: lack of respect for creator IP leads to innovation, but kills creativity. They can copy, but can’t innovate.

I disagree: Stifles innovation: Girl talk. Shut down to copyright infringement.

Slows the creative process: I’m the worst writer in the world. The work you're reading now was absolutely edited, rehashed, refined by not just one, but multiple people. My ability to paint a creative picture or weigh in on a position is currently significantly tied to the rate at which I can type on a keyboard, or the accuracy within the transcription service that I'm using on my computer right now. Both of which are nowhere near the speed at which my brain operates. Even your mouth is about one-seventh the speed of your brain. This has stifled a ton of work in my entire life. Typos on resumes have prevented me from getting jobs. I haven’t finished two books Because of it. I can't wait for a **** keyboard to move into the realm of obscurity.

This reeks of “not in my backyardism.” Well, what if the “drudgery” is not actually connected to the task? Should we require that artists blend their own paints? Figure out how to make blue? Japan tried this and spent a very long time isolated. We should add some art from the great wave, as that's what that piece is actually about.

It's either an argument that leans into isolationism or assumes that you cannot react to the change, to quote Gandhi.

His argument is ultimately for isolationism. Japan tried this. It carries a cost. It’s the inspiration behind several of my favorite pieces of art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSAk1d_s1EU Or what if the drudgery has nothing to do with my actual strength and skill set? Should I trip over speed bumps to make someone somewhere else really happy. That took artificially longer than it had to?

“You can be the change you want, or react to the change you don’t” (Ghandi?). This is an argument against just technological advantage: here’s the counterpoint (cheesy, but you get the point): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gTmyhRM6k0

This doesn’t replace it, but it does change it. It hastens the path to a utility product. It creates a new dimension where connecting new methods is possible. You DON’T think the art you see now is an abomination of the creative exposures of the creator already? An artist's job is compressing and concentrating all the mess and beauty they’re exposed to into a canvas. The expression on your wall is literally just that, a summary of a feeling. Being made less from ones and zeros makes it no less valuable.

Also: Do you think I'm not gonna appreciate my '90s hip-hop list just because people can remix new stuff? Can AI use paint yet? Also, do you think I'm going to turn down a new Fugees album? Or Bach? Or a collaboration between the two??? Or a collaboration between the two that's specifically composed for my wife's birthday dinner???? Hell no, I'm not turning that down, nor do I see how the world should be prevented from developing such a technology. I think it allows people to learn what matters more.