> It has at least been interesting to me to reflect on how I can still appreciate media that humans make when I find AI media so repulsive.
A relevant analog is the arguments about whether independent bands were more real than those who had signed with labels -- about whether money/popularity corrupts art. I never took a side on that, but I do think that most music isn't worth listening too, simply because it's so saccharine and cliched.
So to generalize, Sturgeon's Law is evenly distributed: 90% of everything -- including sci-fi, music, and AI-generated stuff -- is worthless. 90% of AI content is slop, because it is prompted by people who have no taste whatsoever; not bad taste, just zero taste; not everyone is gifted. In the hands of people with refined taste (whether good or bad), they can use AI to produce that 10% of worthwhile AI stuff; but those with refined taste know how to keep AI content from distracting from the larger work, so you never know they are using AI at all.
I don't think society-wide refinement of taste is possible; Sturgeon's Law is here to stay. Instead, we need a corrolary to Sturgeon's Law, which provides a solution to the problem: you can't overturn Sturgeon's Law; you can only build filters to avoid the crap. I can't say how to build such filters, but we can start thinking about them.