Nick Cave certainly has his heart in the right place, but he is panicking a bit with that letter. It's certainly possible that creatives in literature, music a

Nick Cave certainly has his heart in the right place, but he is panicking a bit with that letter. It's certainly possible that creatives in literature, music and image-making can augment their output somewhat with AI and perhaps even more with AGI. This is going to be a problem for them as much as it is for tech workers. In the not-so-long-term it means fewer people will be able to produce "enough" output to drastically reduce the required headcount in places like script writer's boiler rooms, music and graphics production for advertising and in-house corporate productions. But there's definitely "a feel" to heavy-handed use of AI generated stuff. It's palpable. Much like that "uncanny valley" in robotics. I expect it will remain detectable by people who care far into the foreseeable future. I also expect there's going to to be an expanding long-tail market for authentic works that don't have that "whiff" of AI in them. Here's what Chat-GPT says: Nick Cave's concerns reflect a broader debate about the role of AI in creative industries. While AI can augment creative processes, there's a valid point regarding the unique qualities of human-made art. The “feel” or essence that distinguishes human creativity is often nuanced and deeply tied to the human experience. As AI technology advances, the challenge for creatives may not be to compete with AI, but to emphasize these human elements that machines cannot replicate. The market for authentic, human-created art may indeed flourish, as there will likely always be a demand for works that resonate with the human "touch." This dichotomy could create a new appreciation for human artistry, alongside the use of AI as a tool for expanding creative possibilities.