Creativity and saturation in the creative market, making it harder for human artists to stand out or earn recognition and income from their work. That was a bit more than the 200 words I’d asked for, but it gives a pretty good nutshell picture of the promises and chal- lenges. Since GPT-4 brought it up, let’s address the last point first—the one about earning a living. It’s surely (and rightly) much on the minds of many creative workers hearing about AI these days. Reid: Why specifically could it become harder for cre- ative workers to earn income? Why more competition/ saturation, as you say? (150 words.) GPT-4: It could become harder for creative workers to earn income from their work because AI could lower the barriers to entry and increase the supply of cre- ative products in the market. For example, anyone with access to AI could potentially generate music, art, or lit- erature without having to invest much time, effort, skill, or talent. This could result in a flood of low-quality, deriv- ative, or generic works that dilute the value and demand for original, authentic, and high-quality ones. Moreover, AI could also challenge the copyright and ownership of creative works, making it difficult for human artists to protect their intellectual property and monetize their creations. For example, AI could generate works that are based on or influenced by existing works or artists, rais- ing questions about who owns the rights and royalties for those works. Alternatively, AI could generate works that are entirely novel and unique, raising questions about whether they belong to the human user, the AI developer, or the public domain. Reid: Let’s return to the IP questions later. For now—OK, so AI helps less-talented people “flood the market” with, 49