> Everyone can and should engage in creativity, on whatever scale.

But not everyone will, absent economic incentives.

Calling the mechanization of human creativity a "direct attack on human dignity" is a revealing moral judgement.

What makes human creativity so special that it must be so thoroughly protected against technological progress?

Why "human creativity" specifically, and not any of the other categories of human activity?

Why is it "an attack on human dignity" to mechanize it?

What if it's the opposite? What if this is the technology that will finally free us from all the other indignities we suffer? What if it's the technology that could create a post-scarcity society?

> No one in this thread you're responding to privileged a certain type of worker or even a certain type of creativity

Somehow I just don't see anyone make these kinds of sad posts about displaced skilled craftsmen or poor factory workers or any other economically displaced human.

People make a few documentaries here and there so that history is documented, but we all accept that they are gone as a byproduct of the inevitable technological march.

Why should "creatives" be an exception?

> but I guess it's ok because we're all equally garbage in your eyes?

I never said we are all equally "garbage". I said we are all equally replaceable, and that to believe otherwise is to betray a sense of superiority over those who were replaced.

Even the CEOs will meet their match in the end. Stopping before their replacement would be the true crime against human dignity.