I can draw well cause I did it for like 5 hours a day from age 3 to 14, that is because it's what I liked doing.

This is exactly what I'm trying to get across. The "talent" people apply to any of these arts is actually the product of hundreds if not thousands of hours spent practicing and improving at it.

it's because I practice and enjoy practicing this stuff that im good at it

I am convinced people do realise that this is the case but that making talent into some innate thing is a coping mechanism for feelings of inadequacy surrounding not being able to motivate themselves to do the same. The thing is that I don't think anyone should feel inadequate about this. I am a literal god when it comes to Smash Bros, playing at an extremely high genuine competition level. I have this ability because I have motivation for it, I can sit and practice it and feel motivated to do that. But even at times I'm like "cba" when it comes to the sheer number of hours I'd need to put in just to beat 1 more person who is above me. My progress in this skill and whether I could ever reach top 100 is ultimately hampered by motivation, even at this level. It's all practice. None of it is innate talent. I probably won't reach that level, but I fully understand and take responsibility for the fact that it's because I won't put the practice in, my motivation wall has likely been met. The point is that this is no different for sports, or music, or arts.

I'd quite like to have the motivation to draw, I am reasonably good at it having learned several techniques when younger. But I don't have anywhere near the motivation I do for competitive fighting games. Same story really. Motivation.

But that's ok. It doesn't make us inadequate and I'm not calling anyone inadequate for it. We all have different interests.

I don't see how rephrasing things changes much. The situation is still that the people who gain the power to make shit are unmotivated people with no actual skill in the art. They don't magically make good content now that they have AI because they are still unmotivated people with no actual skill and giving them AI doesn't change that. They still require thousands upon thousands of hours of practice to understand and improve in the skill of writing to actually form a decent script, and if they really had such motivation for writing they would be putting it to use and practice without the AI.

You just got lucky by having a brain that works.

I disagree. It's about having a brain that is interested in it, or having parents that can pay a tutor to whack a child's hands with a ruler every time they don't focus on the piano keys but that's a different kind of motivation through force. Real genuine motivation comes from interest, it stops being work and it is basically play for that brain. Not that this changes anything, interest and "brain that works" are still ultimately the same thing in practice, just different interpretations of the mechanism. I think what you're trying to suggest though is wrong, neurotypical people struggle with the motivational requirement to become artists as much as neurodivergent people, their brains still work, they just want to play instead of doing what they perceive as work because the interest isn't there. It's a little spark that makes the art activity into something as fulfilling and enjoyable as playing the videogame is for everyone else.

I take adhd meds too. They don't fix motivation, merely focus.

Yeah, we should create a society where that isnt the case. Until then you do what you can with what you have. You dont need ai to make art. The barrier to entry there is a lot more than paper and pencil. Anyone can make art. You maybe cant make a Pixar movie yourself but no one can. That's why they hired people.

Still this idea that making a vending machine spit out the work of other people slightly remixed doesn't sound like democratization, but just pointless masquerading as someone else's achievements. By generating work based on other people's work one is taking valuable time from them.

What is the point of making visual media if the maker doesn't want to engage in anything that is visual about the media? What is the point of making music if the person making it doesn't want to engage with anything musical? they just want to just write a prompt. There is no vulnerability or personality. There is nothing that feels tangibly human behind it.

during the start of the internet, the social convention was created that entering a chat or an online space in order to spew unwanted mindless information was aggressive disruptive behavior that needed to be moderated off. I am starting to see AI generations in the same vein: producing mindless material and filling the internet with it is a new form of spamming and i hope more people will start to push back on it. Using precious resources to have a vending machine produce media without thought or process sounds the same as pressing the enter button over and over again on the same message on a chat room to get attention.

Also this argument erases centuries of achievements made by neuro divergent and disabled artists. People who painted without hands or had serious disabilities and still made art. I invite you to look into outsider art, and transgressive writing and art. You will find a lot of disabled and neuro divergent people putting work and effort into their art in those spaces. The worse part is AI slop could potentially hurt those people because it homogenizes and clogs the creative industries. AI generation dampens valuable voices that bring much needed diverse perspectives to our shared human subjectivity. Because these creators are working in more fragile conditions. These are people that are poor, have disabilities, or come from fragile backgrounds. The spam of AI generations might be killing their opportunity to get their work out there in the first place.