So many issues in this article, but I'll only address a couple. The author seems to be saying that AI will somehow deprive people of their creativity, but I can

So many issues in this article, but I'll only address a couple. The author seems to be saying that AI will somehow deprive people of their creativity, but I can't fathom that at all. It's a crystallization of the AI-making-art conundrum that so many have. But I see no reason why people won't continue to be creative on their own. Not if their creativity is genuinely springing from within. Nobody is being forced to use AI to create works of art, or even assist in it. Just as nobody is being forced to use the spell check or auto-complete features in word processors. They're just there as an option for those who choose to utilize them. I do see how these things can lower the financial value of artistic works though, which I think is the actual issue that many have. It's the fear that AI doing art will lead to less earning potential by artists, which is a different issue. And the author alludes to the creation of further dependency on Big Tech such as OpenAI. This totally ignores the fact that there are quite a few (actually) open models out there. One can do a fully local setup, use a model service such OpenRouter, or even self-host a model on a GPU service such as Runpod. There are all these options available, depending on user preference and skill, so one doesn't have to become dependent on Big Tech's gated offerings. Overall, the only thing I can really say is I hope the author is very close to retirement or already there, as if they keep this stance on AI they'll eventually fall very far behind, unless they're into plumbing or a similar extremely hands-on field.