Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing.
I'm old enough to remember when operating systems cost money[0].
And compliers. And encyclopaedias. And maps.
I've got too much good zero-cost audio and video content to get through, even at double speed.
[0] MacOS 8, I don't remember what I spent on it (UK), but wikipedia says it cost $99 in the US when it came out in 1997. Inflation adjusted, $188.56 today.
> How do you explain why more recent movies are more expensive to buy or rent on streaming services, then?
Artificial price inflation and recouping costs combined. Fueled by FOMO, people tend to pay more to be able to access it and be up-to-date (TM) in their social circles.
They'll probably recoup the costs without inflated prices, but if they can exploit that title for more money, they'll do it.
Creating human-generated content will cost a lot more, so it will be paywalled. This pattern already exists, limitless machine crap will just make the differential greater.
Kinda interesting that facebook is switching from "real people" generated content (i.e. someone you more or less know) to "random crap" content (not even the tiktok algo). It is like shooting themself into a leg.
People just make content that get views and optimize what gets eyeballs. Take people out of the equation and add gradient descent and who knows what insanity will be unleashed.
