Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I strongly agree with these points, but particularly the second half. "Real art" is not at all under threat by AI, which has effectively no ability to even touch, let alone dilute the supposed magnitude and breadth of the human spirit in expression. The existence/proliferation of AI is not going to infringe upon the abilities or opportunities of a bus driver who comes home every day after work to work covertly o…
I think "AI is replacing art" is a category error. If I read a book or look at a piece of art or listen to music, the whole point is to receive the thoughts, feelings, and lived experience of a human being. But yes, AI is supplanting the mundane "art" that artists use as potboiler work, and that is the economic threat. The bitter horrible irony of art as a career is that the best art is often the hardest to sell, and…
https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/1976
You can pick just about any year and find great work.
The best newspaper work is hard to sell. Pure investigative reporting is too expensive and slow to keep a newspaper in business by itself. Newspapers relied on geographically limited oligopoly to sell a lot of other cheap page-filler at good margins: weather forecasts, sports scores, political opinions, comics, classified ads, movie schedules...
People who just wanted to read the latest Calvin and Hobbes strip were inadvertently, benevolently financing the investigative reporting that their area's newspapers used to support, even if they never actually read those stories. When the Web un-bundled it all, everything but the investigative reporting could be done better and/or less expensively by non-news organizations. News junkies who really care about hard hitting news aren't numerous enough to keep funding the investigative reporting. (And even if they were, most metro areas don't have enough latent scandals to keep newspapers printing regular editions of investigative exposés alone.)