Will read your link, but when I saw the phrase "democratising creativity" I rolled my eyes hard and then grabbed this for you from my bookmarks. But I'll read the rest anyway

https://aeon.co/essays/can-computers-think-no-they-cant-actually-do-anything

Edit: yeah so that piece starts out by saying how art is about the development of what I'm taking to be a sort of 'curatorial' ability, but ends up arguing that as long as the slop machines are nominally controlled by workers, that it's fine actually. I couldn't disagree more.

Elsewhere in a discussion with another user here, I attempted to bring up Ursula Franklin's distinction between holistic and prescriptive technologies. AI is, to me, exemplary of a prescriptive process, in that its entire function is to destroy opportunities for decision-making by the user. The piece you linked admits this is the goal:

"What distinguishes it is its capacity to automate aspects of cognitive and creative tasks such as writing, coding, and illustration that were once considered uniquely human."

I reject this as being worthwhile. The output of those human pursuits can be mimicked by this technology, but, because (as the link I posted makes clear) these systems do not think or understand, they cannot be said to perform those tasks any more than a camera can be said to be painting a picture.

And despite this piece arguing that the people using these processes are merely incorporating a 'tool' into their work, and that AI will open up avenues for incredible new modes of creativity, I struggle to think of an example where the message some GenAI output conveyed was anything other than "I do not really give a shit about the quality of the output".

These days our online environment suffers constantly from this stream of "good enough, I guess, who cares" stuff that insults the viewer by presuming they just want to see some sort of image at the top of a page, and don't care about anything beyond this crass consumptive requirement.

The banner image in question is a great example of this. The overall aesthetic is stereotypical of GenAI images, which supports the notion that control of the process was more or less ceded to the system (or, alternately, that these systems provide few opportunities for directing the process). There are bizarre glitches that the person writing the prompt couldn't be bothered to fix, the composition is directionless, the question-marks have a jarring crispness that clashes with the rest of the image, the tablets? signs? are made from some unknown material, perhaps the same indistinct stuff as the ground these critters are standing on.

It's all actively hostile to a sense of community, as it pretends that communication is something that can just as well be accomplished by a statistical process, because who cares about trying to create something from the heart?

These systems are an insult to human intelligence while also undermining it by automating our decision-making processes. I wrote an essay about this if you're interested, which I'll link here and sign off, because I don't want to be accused again of repeating myself unnecessarily: https://thedabbler.patatas.ca/pages/ai-is-dehumanization-technology.html