You have missed the point of his article. These things keep getting written, by smart people, BECAUSE other smart people like you are not getting that point. O

You have missed the point of his article. These things keep getting written, by smart people, BECAUSE other smart people like you are not getting that point. Obviously, people can still produce art. What he’s talking about is the corrosion of the fabric of culture that will serve to discourage and coopt the art-making impulse. It’s like this: When I was working on the last chapters of my book, I spent a few weeks in a cabin with no internet. Why? Certainly, the mere presence of internet wasn’t interfering with my keyboard, right? Right. But part of my brain wanted to surf and play games online, and it was dragging the rest of my brain with it. “Art” is a cultural dynamic, not just a matter of production. It is being colonized by people who use the word and don’t care about art. And some people who might have become great artists will now become frustrated consumers and nothing more— their energies dissipated. I don’t know how big this problem really is. But that’s his concern. At least engage with it instead of implying that this Stanford professor is a moron who doesn’t understand how computers work.