That was around long before AI, it didn't create it.

The suggested concept in this article is stupid as shit. There's no value to slop whatsoever. Only a fucking idiot would buy something created with AI. It has an inherently negative value since it consumes resources to create and has no uniqueness since it just pulls from a massive database of straight up plagiarism

Can someone tell me what the point of this article is? Got halfway through and everything could have been summarized with:

People hate slop.

It is known, brother.

I don’t buy this. I think this take is tech-washing the problem.

Defining non-AI art as having a 'human premium' assumes that AI art is in any way the same thing. Slop might be cheaper than art, but it's not the same thing.

Turns out putting sawdust into our rice krispies made people stop buying our product.

Apparently they want the "rice premium".

I've been saying it for a bit. AI pushes down the floor, it doesn't raise the ceiling. You're going to pay more for what you had before, that's the whole business model.