> creating being fundamental to the human experience

Fundamental, I can agree with. Exclusive? Clearly not. Not anymore.

People can still create now, even in spite of AI. Will anyone pay for it? Who knows. Doubtful.

> The biggest fault with our current socioeconomic system

I can agree with this. I believe that at this point the only hope left for humanity is to leverage AIs to the max and achieve a post-scarcity society. It's our only chance, and things are gonna get ugly if we fail.

The socioeconomic argument is sound, just don't let it get twisted into "but think of all the creators, the super special noble humans, they deserve protection against the AI onslaught".

Nobody cared about all the countless skilled labourers who were disrupted and automated away by technology. Asking us to shed tears for artists now is honestly offensive, doubly so when the people asking are programmers who literally make bank by automating away the jobs of others.

We are job destroyers. Our work inherently reduces the set of people who are still economically valuable. We are all about getting more done for less. Our only hope lies in finishing our journey, and making it possible to do everything for nothing at all.

The harm of generative AI runs much deeper than economics.

Creating is communication. When you share your work, you're sharing your mind. You're demonstrating mastery of a craft. You're inspiring others. The linked article is specifically about how AI is actively harming the relationship between readers and writers, and not in a hypothetical future, but right now.

Even if we enter a "post-scarcity" society, I'm concerned fewer people will create. Why speak if your voice is silenced under a sea of synthetic outputs? Yes, you can create because you enjoy the mechanics, but the communication will be gone.

Generative AI is a long term concern as it hurts something fundamentally ancient.