As a musician, I can tell you one thing: part of what gives me drive to make music is knowing that what I'm creating is a scarce resource. (For example, if I re

As a musician, I can tell you one thing: part of what gives me drive to make music is knowing that what I'm creating is a scarce resource. (For example, if I realize one of my songs sounds like another existing song, it stops sounding good to me.) If it comes that AI can generate new songs for me, all of that value I assign to creating music is lost. This dilemma came up before, as photography started to become practical. Artists didn't see the point in painting what the camera could render perfectly. So instead, we got Impressionism, and everything that grew out of it. There will always be room in art to do something different, something "out of distribution," so to speak. Great artists will still surprise us. Average ones can still have fun. Crappy ones will just have to find something else to do. Life will go on. As for the notion of a "creativity equalizer", that's laughable. It would take a god to do that, not a computer. AI is a tool, and some people will always be better than others at using the available tools. Those are the ones we will continue to call "artists," "musicians," and "writers."