Every story told, is folded into the corpus of all human stories, all variations of the heroes journey, all variations of the hammon-cycle. AI by being trained on the corpus, is average - which makes it better than 80 % of mankind.

But we are tired of many stories. We see "new" movies until we are around 20 - then the repetition sets in- we get a refined taste and long for the exotic (-30) until finally, we search for outliers, for anything new, desperate under the sun.

AI can not provide that. But also humans can not provide that. Every bard, every writer, every poet, every band rises every morning to compete against the beatles. Most of them loose and thus abandon the craft to win bread elsewhere.

If you seriously dig into literature or film you'll find that many of the stories don't fit into the hero's journey at all--or only fit if you make the "journey" so generic as to be practically tautological.

As for the claim about people's lives. People who are serious about art almost invariably keep enjoying the "basic" classics; many musicians keep listening to Bach all their lives. Faulkner claimed to read Don Quixote over again every year. It is possible to find novelty in the well-worn.

> But also humans can not provide that. Every bard, every writer, every poet, every band rises every morning to compete against the beatles. Most of them loose and thus abandon the craft to win bread elsewhere.

Most, but not all. For every 99 who give up and go and do something else, one transcends.

AI cannot create. Humans can. Most do not, but the possibility is always there that they could.