I think the current diversity of music is largely caused by artists' different lived experiences. You feel something, this is important for you, you try to express that via music. As long as AIs don't have anything like "unique experiences" on the scale of humans, I'm not sure if they'll be able to create music that is that diverse (and thus interesting).

If the AI customized it for each listener (and does a good job), then music will reflect the unique experiences of the listeners, which would result in a more diverse range of music than music that only reflects the unique experiences of musicians.

Of course, we could end up in an awkward middle ground where AI only generates variations on a successful pop music formula, and it all becomes a bland mush. But I think in that case, people would just go back to human-generated music on Spotify and YouTube.

I like this collection of concepts, but I feel like I may not be understanding them very well without examples. Do you have any cached examples?

Sure, but that does imply that your marginal utility of money decreases that fast outside that domain.

The assumption that the marginal utility of wealth decreases exponentially doesn't seem justified to me. Why not some other positive-but-decreasing function, such as 1/W (which yield a logarithmic utility function)?

What properties does the utility function need to have for this result to generalize, and are those priorities reasonable to assume?

To pick an uncontroversial example, imagine someone glomerizing in whether the Earth was flat or (approximately) spherical. That would signal that you're the sort of person who considered a spherical Earth to be a plausible hypothesis, which is almost as bad as actually believing it. All reasonable, right-thinking people, on the other hand, know that it's obviously flat and wouldn't even consider such nonsense.

How do you determine where it's ok for her to go barefoot?

I think it's intentional. He's saying that reducing the fee from $23k to $230 would be an improvement.

The FDA used to have a long backlog of drug approval applications due to understaffing. This problem was eventually addressed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which established filling fees for drug approvals and a deadline to review new drug applications. The filling fees were a way to make the cost of additional staffing politically palatable, and are much less than the costs of approval delays.

How does this compare to the costs of making (part of) Antarctica habitable?

Do you have any examples (or likely examples) of this happening?