This is not inherent to AI, but how the AI models were recently trained (by preference agreement of many random users). Look for the latest Krea / Black Forest Labs paper on AI style. The "AI look" can be removed.

Songs right now are terrible. For the videos, things are going to be very different once people can create full movies in their computers. Many will have access to the ability to create movies, and a few will be very good, and this will likely change many things. Btw this stupid "AI look" is only transient and is nowhere needed. It will be fixed, and AI images/videos generation will be impossible to stop.

The trouble is, I'm perfectly well aware I can go to the AI tools, ask it to do something and it'll do it. So there's no point me wasting time eg reading AI blog posts as they'll probably just tell me what I've just read. The same goes for any media.

It'll only stand on its own when significant work is required. This is possible today with writing, provided the AI is directed to incorporate original insights.

And unless it's immediately obvious to consumers a high level of work has gone into it, it'll all be tarred by the same brush.

Any workforce needs direction. Thinking an AI can creatively execute when not given a vision is flawed.

Either people will spaff out easy to generate media (which will therefore have no value due to abundance), or they'll spend time providing insight and direction to create genuinely good content... but again unless it's immediately obvious this has been done, it will again suffer the tarring through association.

The issue is really one of deciding to whom to give your attention. It's the reason an ordinary song produced by a megastar is a hit vs when it's performed by an unsigned artist. Or, as in the famous experiment, the same world class violinist gets paid about $22 for a recital while busking vs selling out a concert hall for $100 per seat that same week.

This is the issue AI, no matter how good, will have to overcome.