This is an centuries old argument. Most people don’t create to make money, they create because they __have__ to.

If those motivated purely by money stop creating little of value will be lost

People that create art, must eat and sleep under a roof.

and we can definitely feed them. Plenty of resources lying around.

We don't feed or house tons of people right now, despite those resources.

We can, we (as in society) doesn't, because the powers that be benefit from it.

Somehow Finland can manage, but US can't? Please.

The roofless exist to send a message, "stay in your lane, be a cog in the machine, don't disrupt the system and you won't end up like THEM".

Most people who create for a living aren't motivated purely by money, but are driven by the necessities of capitalism to do so. You're presenting a false dichotomy, pretending to care about the quality of art, but really like everyone, you just want other people's work for free.

Great art - especially in modern times when that art involves expensive education (which if you're American must be paid for with interest) and the incorporation of technology and equipment - takes time and effort. If that time and effort cannot be paid for, then no matter how passionate an artist may be, unless they have sufficient personal wealth, that art must suffer.

Even the great artists of old needed patrons, because they needed to eat like anyone else. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling for the love of the game, nor would he have.

I guarantee you that the working artists who have already lost commissions and work due to AI care about their craft.

Im happy to pay the artist directly - which is why I use services like bandcamp or buy artworks directly from artists I know personally.

I care little about paying „rightsholders“ and their ilk - so I have zero empathy if they complain about imagined losses.

Don’t jump to conclusions about people who have never even talked to

Artists are "rightsholders" and their ilk. You didn't even separate the two in your former comment, so you clearly weren't talking about corporate owners of IP like Sony and Disney, exclusively.

Maybe you believe no artist who works for a corporation has any motivation but money, as opposed to purely "indie" artists, I don't know where the line in your head is drawn, but you do seem willing to throw most artists under the bus for some arbitrary standard of purity.

AI is harming working artists right now, and will likely never harm corporate rightsholders. They'll simply run their own AIs and fire as many people as they can get away with. The end result will not be that only the "true" artists survive but simply less art of any kind, everywhere. So I stand by my comment.

With rightsholders I mean exactly those big corporations who do nothing else but buy up copyrights to successful art.

I for example have never benefited from copyright, neither from GEMA (the German artist association for musicians) - 99% of payouts go to the rich and successful mainstream artists and „indie“ artists get nothing but are forced by law to pay in if they want to perform in public.

So yea I have little sympathy for artists who only work for corporations or are rich enough to afford lawyers to enforce their copyright.

The way I see it there exist 3 ways to make a living as an artist now: - be rich trustfundkid and don’t care about money - be „purist“ and just live from selling your art and be on the brink of starvation constantly - get a „money“job and produce art in your spare time

Apparently there exists a huge population of artists who can make a living from working for corporations - but I have yet to meet one in real life. They are always brought up in these HN discussions but in my experience they don’t exist.

I didn’t say anything about money. Why are people talking about money

I’m not pretending anything. I’m just making a statement about what might happen. I don’t personally care much one way or the other.

I didn’t say anything about money or the motivation to create?

Chess, at some point, and after you move beyond the opening, is creation.

People didn't stop painting because photography exists, they created new forms of photography. People didn't stop writing music or using new / unique instruments when synths and programs came along.

I genuinely believe that people will keep creating, it's in our nature, and we also like things made by other humans, because we can relate to them.

Imho your argument is faulty at its base. The objective of chess competition isn't to produce a reasonably good game for the lowest possible cost (blunders and comebacks are actually pretty valuable parts of the spectacle). It also isn't the reason why chess players get paid. Yes, running still was a thing even after the invention of bicycle. This is just invalid logic in my opinion.

Chess hustlers in central park don't play for money, or for a competition, they play for the fun of it, for the sake of chess itself, for the sake of exploring the game, the thrill of finding a solution.

It has nothing to do with whatever "value" the capitalist system assigns to the act as a side-effect.

Chess hustlers are a particular niche case and I think many of them would disagree with you (the money part). Making arguments in such an absolute manner and speaking on behalf of many people (mostly with whom you share very little I assume) is guaranteed to be wrong I think.