[neuracnu]

In short: we'll have the machines tell the creators what to create.

> You could imagine an AI company suggesting back to creators that they need more created about topics they may not have enough content about. Say, for example, the carrying capacity of unladened swallows because they know their subscribers of a certain age and proclivity are always looking for answers about that topic. The very pruning algorithms the AI companies use today form a roadmap for what content is worth enough to not be pruned but paid for.

[cj]

Valid point / not a bad idea. One flaw might be that (successful and high quality) content creators are accustomed outsized rewards for their work. Ads pay very, very well for people creating content viewed by a lot of people.

Would AI companies be willing to match that (even 50% match)? If not, we might just end up with low paid copyrighters / ghost writers churning out large amounts of content for LLMs in subject areas where they don't necessarily have expertise.

[Karrot_Kream]

I think Patreon-style backing has been proving out the viability of payment based creators. Technology Connections is largely funded by Patreon but puts out free content all the time. My guess is that once x402 becomes more standardized that Youtube, Substack, and other SaaS can add in paywall functionality which can help fund the free content for creators.

[orbital-decay]

Creating something on demand instead of growing it autonomously already made everything non-authentic for the most part. Automating this would make everything totally fake and homogenized, and also devalue the data in the process. "Regularization" and filling gaps is a mistake, they should reward the originality instead.

[sbarre]

"The machines" in this scenario are being informed by what the humans are asking for though..

They're not just making it up..

[layer8]

It means they will request faster horses, though.