Claims that artificial intelligence will disproportionately hinder working-class talent from succeeding in the creative sectors fundamentally misunderstand the nature of these industries. The arts have always been inherently unequal, and this disparity is not a product of modern technology alone, argues economist Paul Ormerod.
Reports Highlight Sectoral Threats
The cultural and creative industries have been under intense scrutiny recently, with two significant reports raising alarms. A study fronted by crossbench peer Baroness Kidron warns that AI poses a severe threat, potentially endangering the jobs of 2.4 million people across a broad sector encompassing arts, media, design, publishing, and entertainment.
The report suggests that large tech companies are scraping the work of composers, artists, and writers, often with little regard for copyright laws, to generate more competitive offerings. This technological encroachment is seen as a direct challenge to human creativity and employment.
Class Barriers and Economic Realities
A second report, led by Nazir Afzal, Chancellor of the University of Manchester, and titled Class Ceiling, identifies major barriers for working-class talent. These include low pay, class-based discrimination, and a lack of essential social connections needed to break into the industry.
However, Ormerod points out that this sector naturally generates a massively unequal distribution of income among its workers. For instance, Taylor Swift has achieved billionaire status, while most individuals in the music industry earn less than the national average. This vast earnings gap itself acts as a key exclusionary factor, as low pay necessitates family support for aspiring artists, many of whom give up due to economic pressures.
The Driving Forces of Inequality
The internet era has undoubtedly intensified these trends, but the underlying forces of inequality predate our hyperconnected world. The American economist Sherwin Rosen captured this dynamic in his 1981 paper, The Economics of Superstars, published years before the internet's widespread adoption.
Rosen starts with a reasonable assumption: people prefer a product of slightly better quality, even if the difference is marginal. In mass-market creative industries, technology amplifies these small differences, leading to winner-take-all outcomes.
The Role of Joint Consumption
A key concept here is joint consumption. Unlike physical goods—where one person's consumption prevents another's—digital products like films on Netflix can be enjoyed by millions simultaneously at virtually no extra cost. This effect is reinforced by the social value of shared experiences; watching the same film provides common ground for conversation.
This dynamic causes already popular offerings to become even more popular, creating superstars. As Ormerod notes, Taylor Swift is talented, but is she a thousand times better than a performer earning a mere million? The market structure and technology make it so, not inherent superiority.
AI as Just Another Challenge
The creative industries have already been transformed by the internet, facing disruptions in distribution, monetisation, and audience engagement. AI represents merely the latest in a series of challenges they must navigate. While it may exacerbate existing inequalities, the root causes—economic structures and human preferences for quality and shared experiences—are more fundamental.
In summary, focusing solely on AI's threat overlooks the deeper, persistent inequalities driven by superstar economics. The creative sector's future will depend on adapting to technological changes while addressing these longstanding structural issues.
