[jgord]

I posit that periods of relatively high creativity [ in art science music literature ] coincide with periods of relatively low inequality.

ie. if everyone is working so hard to pay rent / college, nobody has time to work on side projects in the garage, or go deep into books, or dedicate spare time to a craft or do down a science research rabbit hole.

Im not sure LLMs will free up much time for people in the middle of the economy - they might produce more but get paid the same.

[keepamovin]

I'm not sure if that's true. The Renaissance was peak creativity, but also high inequality - from peasants to the Medicis. Chinese and Japanese art seemed to flourish during wealthy imperial times, but decline during war, where the blender of chaos made people much more equal. Chinese art surged back in the last two decades in new modern forms.

Basquiat thrived during peak 1980s New York, and had a rags to riches trajectory, I think. Art is not generally something people get to "as a hobby" when they have time among normal life. The artist mindset is different: you need to do it. It's survival. Not about money. You have to express and create. You probably don't choose like other people.

The true creatives find a way with what they have. This is not to denigrate people who take up painting or photography as a hobby and often produce high quality stuff. It is to distinguish separate experiences. It's also to highlight that "great creativity" comes from a psychic imperative and visceral drive on part of the people who do it.