PJ, here's my problem with part of your analysis. There is a tension between
AI is a great tool
and
We already have entertaining slop for the masses. And AI will soon be good enough to satisfy this demand. In fact, in many arenas, it already is.
The first statement is based on the notion that AI is assistive technology. The second seems to suggest that AI can be replacement technology. Those two ideas are not entirely consistent, and it's the second one I find most concerning.
I probably wouldn't mind an ethically trained AI that functioned only in an assistive capacity. But we don't have the first part, and the second part is arguable.
I agree in theory with the idea that human creatives can find a niche because AI won't be able to outdo them. But the market is likely going to be small, and as I've suggested, human writers who are already household names will probably get most of it.
By the way, yesterday I ran across an incident where a cover designer paid heavily for the use of AI. I don't know the name because the writer of the article was trying to avoid naming and shaming, but here's what happened. The designer had a job with a trad publisher, and every time he submitted a cover, he was asked to verify it was his own work. All was well until the publisher got a cease-and-desist letter from an artist claiming a copyright violation because something that was substantively his image was used without his permission. He also wanted $75,000 in damages. The publisher, surprised, to say the least, went back to the designer, who said the image was "his own work," with a little help from MidJourney. The designer hired an attorney, who basically said, "They have a solid case. Settle." The designer didn't have to do that, because the publisher negotiated a much lower settlement, had the cover redone--and fired the designer.
Whatever one says, it is possible for AI to spit out something that's too close to an existing image to avoid copyright challenges. It's probably far less likely in text. Note that in such cases, it's the "operator" of the software, not the AI company, that's liable for damages.
LilyBLily, it's certainly true that there aren't authors catering to the affluent, but the original post presupposes a different situation than the current one, one in which AI writing is crowding out human writing, much as manufactured goods crowded out hand-crafted goods.
But hand-crafted stuff does still exist. It's more expensive, and so its primarly appeal is to the affluent, even though affluent people may still buy other things. I think a similar model could be possible in publishing, though my suspicion remains that shoppers for "hand-crafted" books will primarily go for famous names.
