> We're going to be starving out our artists because robots can generate art _far_ more easily than they can. If this continues, it disincentivizes anyone from

> We're going to be starving out our artists because robots can generate art _far_ more easily than they can. If this continues, it disincentivizes anyone from trying the already very uphill battle of making a living by creating art. One might say, "capitalism, baby! we don't need those artists, because we have AI and look at what it can do in seconds!" But I think that even if AI can "discover" new art styles and trends, there's something lost by humans not doing it. This has already happened. People used to get paid to recreate paintings but now we have the technology to do it without a painter. You used to need a musician whenever you wanted live music but now we just play a recording. Basically, what you are describing is how technology has worked forever. I am not sure why people have chosen this particular instance of technology lessening capitalistic opportunities for artists to get their knickers in a twist over. The same thing that has happened in the past will happen again. Artists will adapt and learn to use new tools, less people will make money via art, and people will keep making art anyways because the reason most people do it isn’t money.