Cameron Armstrong on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

Fatter tails on upside outcomes via Internet distribution implies quantity of reps matter more than quality Quantity of reps going up implies median quality of rep going down, but it also implies improved quality of rep through repeated practice Where is the free market of human activity going to lead us?

6 replies

2 recasts

15 reactions

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

what does "free market of human activity" mean exactly

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

left it open ended bc I genuinely think this logic applies to basically any human endeavor today but if I had to define it I’d say something like “any approximately meritocratic industry, social group, or subculture that is influenced by modern technocapitalist incentive structures”

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

I agree about quantity of reps mattering, but have little faith that most industries or groups that consider themselves meritocracies are actually meritocratic. we have a long way to go, crypto and even more so tech rely on credentialism, insular networks + superficial indicators of prestige > talent, contributions

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

But we already see a ton of pre-existing industries forced to acknowledge more and more winners selected by the “free market of human activity” a la internet distro Standup comedy Music Writing Even if we hate our algorithmic overlords and the proxy is imperfect, it’s a pretty bad time to stan Gatekeeping haha

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

I'm not sure I agree, industries acknowledge virality, but they seem pretty happy to own the platforms. Has the quality of music, standup comedy or writing improved with internet distribution? Is it easier for musicians, comics, or writers to sustain careers purely based on their talent?

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

Maybe a specific example will help: did X monetizing views on Twitter make for better posts from a wider range of posters? Did the good posters naturally rise to the top?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

A few thoughts: -I haven’t said anything about platform monetization (platform payouts are usually the smallest % of creator revenue) bc I think the real incentives are off platform -I think X today is a laggard not leader in free market of human activity -Pre-Elon x for sure elevated a wide variety of posters

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

regardless of where the real incentives are, I just don't think that internet distribution means that quality rises to the top. It's not a defense of gatekeepers, I'm questioning applying market logic to creative fields. Producing great writing, music, 'content' ≠ distribution, the existence of new ways to share 1/2

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

i think everyone gets to define for themselves what quality means for them i want creatives to be able to spend more time doing what they love but i also think since we our definitions are uniquely ours, the only useful societal quality measure is what “most people like” and the internet reveals this v well imo

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

I actually totally agree with your second point here which is one of my biggest issues with the assumptions around internet distribution, meritocracy & creative economies. creatives should not have to devote so much of their time to self-promotion, creating content about pursuing their craft, to make a living

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

I think the danger with internet distribution is what most people like tends to look pretty uniform, so you get a lot of different content that basically looks the same. mono-culture I really question this idea that any kind of distribution means that these creative fields are becoming more meritocratic

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

I'd say its a problem that almost all the artists, musicians, writers, filmmakers, and even creative professionals I know view our creative culture as in a state of decline and all the tech people I know think its gotten better

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

I guess I’d invert it and ask Will people stop creating after the cohort that thinks Rome is burning quits? Or will a new wave figure out how to express themselves beautifully with the new tools (and constraints)?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

proxy pfp

@proxystudio.eth

These people aren't the quitting type, they don't write or make music to make money they do it because thats who they are, they squeeze out livings on the margins of dying industries, big tech, in the shadows of algorithms, big brands, and against a monoculture defined by the tastes of content consumers.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction