I don't think any of this is incompatible with the argument I made in the essay. This paragraph speaks to it: The same holds for art. AI can, right now, produc

I don't think any of this is incompatible with the argument I made in the essay. This paragraph speaks to it: The same holds for art. AI can, right now, produce pretty passable mediocre art. Which is a threat to plenty of artists, writers, etc., because plenty of artists, writers, etc., produce mediocre art. I’m pretty confident existing frontier LLM models could come up with an episode of the ABC drama 9-1-1 indistinguishable from the output of that show’s writing room. But, again, “almost all cognitive tasks a human can do” aims a bit higher than 9-1-1. So the claim I'm making isn't "AI can't generate art that satisfies many or most people." Rather it's that Roose is wrong to believe it is capable, or will become capable, of "almost all cognitive tasks a human can do," which is a different standard. That lots of people are happy to accept less than the best doesn't mean that something that is capable only of achieving that less-than-the-best level is actually capable of achieving the best. It just means that lots of people are happy to accept less than the best.