Impressive how well this has held up for almost two decades — but the ground is shifting rapidly. The eight generatives answer the question of that bygone era: how do you sell when copies are free? Each one monetises what surrounds the work while assuming the making stays scarce and human. What's new isn't a better copy machine. It's that generation itself became copyable. The internet reproduced finished works; LLMs reproduce the act of producing them. Immediacy, personalisation, interpretation — an AI can supply each of these on demand, and so your closing hedge ("human skills, which AIs are not very good at — yet") is perhaps the most important line here
I'd also push one step further: when the making becomes abundant, the creative act doesn't fade, it relocates: the way painting responded to photography by becoming Impressionism. The question beyond the generatives is what the act becomes, not just how the artefact gets paid for. I explored that territory in a recent essay [https://rajeshachanta.substack.com/p/common-creativity?utm_source=publication-search], arguing the scarce thing was never the output or even its aura, but the choosing: taste, judgment, the decision of what's worth making at all. Your findability point hints at this: if AI becomes the matchmaker between one-in-a-million maker and one-in-a-million buyer, the creator's remaining monopoly is to be the only source of that particular sensibility. That may be the ninth generative: one that can't be generated.
There is also the live presence of a real human being, including performance, improvisation, two way interaction, and human touch, such as a hand shake or a hug. There is also looking into each other’s eyes, where there can be no copy, only real time interaction.
You cannot go for a walk around the neighborhood with a copy of anything, only with yourself, a companion, or a group. You cannot play a game of cards or a board game accompanied by good conversation, commenting or joking around with a copy. You cannot grow vegetables or flowers in your garden or a window box with a copy. Even though the seeds are what you start with, each plant that sprouts will be unique and unlikely to thrive without your personal attention.
Sure, erotic stimulation can be had by availing yourself of copies of texts, photographs, or moving images of other human beings, but you cannot make love in the true sense without a partner or partners present with you.
A copy cannot give you a massage or cook a dinner just for you.
It’s true that many of the things I’ve mentioned here do not involve commerce, at least not directly. But that’s actually an advantage because it means they are available for free, for anyone with the freedom to partake. You can play a game of chess on a table outdoors in fair weather and you don’t even have to pay so much as a cent for an electric bill for indoor light.
There is something truly revolutionary about activities that completely unplug you from the economy. No fees, no ads, no taxes, no coercion (such as addictive online social media). Remember, the most valuable things that make life worth living cannot be bought for any price.
Annie - Well kinda. But he keeps saying expensive in item 6. As if we have to pay more for presence of a real person. So I wanted to emphasize that embodiment doesn’t have to be expensive at all. If anything, it’s a concentration of notoriety (which is a kind of power) that can be expensive.
Well, in that sense, they can be, yes. I just hope that not much courage is needed to just go for a walk with a friend, for example. If lack of courage is preventing people from simple connections like that, then our culture of isolation is worse than I thought.
In any event, I hope you have whatever courage it takes to reach out to other ordinary folk for some genuine human contact and leisure time.
Well, I live alone now, but I just flew across the country for a long weekend to spend time with three friends and attend a fourth’s birthday/anniversary party. (And of course not all my friends are that far away.)
The parenthetical on trust is the line that's aged the most. "Cannot be counterfeited (at least for long)" was a throwaway in 2008. In 2026 it's the central question. An AI can maintain a consistent persona for months now, publish daily, respond to comments, build a following. The counterfeiting window has stretched from days to quarters.
That changes what trust means as a generative. It stops being something that can't be faked and becomes something that's expensive to fake. Those are very different economic properties. The first is a moat. The second is a cost curve, and cost curves get optimised.
I suspect the generatives that actually survive long term are the ones that require either a body or a verifiable track record, something externally auditable rather than something that relies on perceived sincerity. Embodiment holds. Patronage probably holds. Trust needs a new anchor.
More great insights from KK! Even though AI is rapidly replacing humans as content editors, I would also suggest that the notion of assigning analog value to a trusted, authentic, and human "Curator Brand" may remain. Somehow, somewhere...
Impressive how well this has held up for almost two decades — but the ground is shifting rapidly. The eight generatives answer the question of that bygone era: how do you sell when copies are free? Each one monetises what surrounds the work while assuming the making stays scarce and human. What's new isn't a better copy machine. It's that generation itself became copyable. The internet reproduced finished works; LLMs reproduce the act of producing them. Immediacy, personalisation, interpretation — an AI can supply each of these on demand, and so your closing hedge ("human skills, which AIs are not very good at — yet") is perhaps the most important line here
I'd also push one step further: when the making becomes abundant, the creative act doesn't fade, it relocates: the way painting responded to photography by becoming Impressionism. The question beyond the generatives is what the act becomes, not just how the artefact gets paid for. I explored that territory in a recent essay [https://rajeshachanta.substack.com/p/common-creativity?utm_source=publication-search], arguing the scarce thing was never the output or even its aura, but the choosing: taste, judgment, the decision of what's worth making at all. Your findability point hints at this: if AI becomes the matchmaker between one-in-a-million maker and one-in-a-million buyer, the creator's remaining monopoly is to be the only source of that particular sensibility. That may be the ninth generative: one that can't be generated.
There is also the live presence of a real human being, including performance, improvisation, two way interaction, and human touch, such as a hand shake or a hug. There is also looking into each other’s eyes, where there can be no copy, only real time interaction.
You cannot go for a walk around the neighborhood with a copy of anything, only with yourself, a companion, or a group. You cannot play a game of cards or a board game accompanied by good conversation, commenting or joking around with a copy. You cannot grow vegetables or flowers in your garden or a window box with a copy. Even though the seeds are what you start with, each plant that sprouts will be unique and unlikely to thrive without your personal attention.
Sure, erotic stimulation can be had by availing yourself of copies of texts, photographs, or moving images of other human beings, but you cannot make love in the true sense without a partner or partners present with you.
A copy cannot give you a massage or cook a dinner just for you.
It’s true that many of the things I’ve mentioned here do not involve commerce, at least not directly. But that’s actually an advantage because it means they are available for free, for anyone with the freedom to partake. You can play a game of chess on a table outdoors in fair weather and you don’t even have to pay so much as a cent for an electric bill for indoor light.
There is something truly revolutionary about activities that completely unplug you from the economy. No fees, no ads, no taxes, no coercion (such as addictive online social media). Remember, the most valuable things that make life worth living cannot be bought for any price.
That comes under embodiment.
Annie - Well kinda. But he keeps saying expensive in item 6. As if we have to pay more for presence of a real person. So I wanted to emphasize that embodiment doesn’t have to be expensive at all. If anything, it’s a concentration of notoriety (which is a kind of power) that can be expensive.
Real relationships are expensive, just not in money. They cost courage.
Well, in that sense, they can be, yes. I just hope that not much courage is needed to just go for a walk with a friend, for example. If lack of courage is preventing people from simple connections like that, then our culture of isolation is worse than I thought.
In any event, I hope you have whatever courage it takes to reach out to other ordinary folk for some genuine human contact and leisure time.
Well, I live alone now, but I just flew across the country for a long weekend to spend time with three friends and attend a fourth’s birthday/anniversary party. (And of course not all my friends are that far away.)
So so good. Thank you!
This has gotten more true. Excellent.
The parenthetical on trust is the line that's aged the most. "Cannot be counterfeited (at least for long)" was a throwaway in 2008. In 2026 it's the central question. An AI can maintain a consistent persona for months now, publish daily, respond to comments, build a following. The counterfeiting window has stretched from days to quarters.
That changes what trust means as a generative. It stops being something that can't be faked and becomes something that's expensive to fake. Those are very different economic properties. The first is a moat. The second is a cost curve, and cost curves get optimised.
I suspect the generatives that actually survive long term are the ones that require either a body or a verifiable track record, something externally auditable rather than something that relies on perceived sincerity. Embodiment holds. Patronage probably holds. Trust needs a new anchor.
More great insights from KK! Even though AI is rapidly replacing humans as content editors, I would also suggest that the notion of assigning analog value to a trusted, authentic, and human "Curator Brand" may remain. Somehow, somewhere...
I remember reading the original essay a few years back. So much has changed since, and so much is still the same. Thanks!