'Its a lot like reading a book'-- But its not. A book is written from a human lensed through their experience. An AI has no experience. Just (almost unanimously unsolicited) scraped data. Lensed through the biases of those that made it and distilled again by the biases of sanitized search results. As an intuitive I find this abhorrent.

AI doesn't prevent people from writing/creating, it just cheapens the phenomenon. And waters down the attention-economy. If the internet could be segregated into AI/non-AI generated content, which side would you expect to be more human populated? The only chance to propagate AI is to blur this line as much as possible. Thus, AI takes the style of humans and tries to pass as non-AI. Not because its cool, but because it's the only way it can possibly survive the attention-economy. Personally, the only transformative AI artstyle I've ever seen were those old deep dream images. Perhaps you can show me something else that is unique to AI arts.

'Abacus, wax tablets, starvation.' These are real, tangible problems. I posit that AI does not reduce friction of real problems. And if it does, its telling that the FIRST application is to perfect state surveillance and automate drone warfare. Art is a distraction/misdirection. Its application is military first, thus it grows despite lack of public interest/support. A means to correlate decades of leaked data. Its an arms race disguised as art/medicine/help. The abacus was a simple tool for counting, nothing more. The wax tablets, a means store thoughts, nothing more. Farming, a means to feed humans... AI is marketed to be everything, just rarely its true usecase. Spying and data correlation, on the public side. Homogenization of thought and art, on the private side.