This data is courtesy of Dan Shapiro.
As there are only so many people and hours in the day, the market for human attention is finite. Hollywood is spending more money to make TV and movies, but its market share is declining. People, especially younger people, are far more likely to watch videos on the internet made by small creators. Needless to say, the small content creators' costs are vastly cheaper. AI is rapidly making them cheaper still.
And it's not just that small creators using AI-generation will displace Hollywood's existing efforts; they are likely to create new artforms that will displace the old screen/broadcast formats of TV shows & movies too. AI-gen artforms, as yet uninvented, may be real-time rendered, personalized for individuals, hyper-niche, etc, etc
This is all part of a surprising trend with AI, its tendency towards decentralization. Some dommerist nightmares see all powerful corporations in the future, but as with open-source AI & robotics equalling the Big Tech efforts, the trend seems more for AI's power to be dispersed.
The photo editing software and chainsaw aren't made artificially cheap by companies operating at a loss by burning investor capital.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was saying; that it isn't centralized as you said.
Artificially cheap seems like a buzzword. I'm not sure what you mean but I can guarantee that a lot of chainsaws are cheaply made and Adobe definitely showcases "cheap" behavior. It has nothing to do with centralisation in any case.
In the same vein, a lot of ground breaking technologies started at a loss. I don't think all AI companies are running at a lost but some are doing it for our benefit, mainly the ones releasing free models with open minded licenses.