> A few days later I found myself in a grocery checkout line, skimming through yet another article in which the writer touted the wonders of “artificial intelligence” and fretted hazily over whether we are nearing the point when AI will be able to produce novels, films, and other creative work, effectively replacing us. When I looked up and over to other people in the line, half of them wore the same shoe brand as me.

This is an interesting phenomenon with AI. People immediately assume that because AI has the ability to flood the market with mediocre art/writing/whatever, that artists and writers are screwed. In my experience it's quite the opposite; when the market gets flooded with repetitive mediocre garbage, the relative scarcity of something unique increases and actually increases the price, accordingly.

To the author's point, you can get the same Adidas shoe as everyone else for $50, or you can get a largely similar-looking pair of Guccis for ~$800 US[0]. Those Guccis would not exist if not for the mass-market cheap option; there would be no reason to splurge on an expensive unique purchase if everyone else was already wearing something unique. Or not wearing shoes at all.

This has been my experience since the introduction of stable diffusion and dall-e as well. Just anecdotal, as I don't have any access to hard data, but the artists I've spoken to say that their commissions and fanbox subscriptions have gone up since SD was released. Much like the trope of friend groups keeping an ugly friend around to make themselves look better, the mediocre and soulless AI art that's flooding the internet has, apparently, made people appreciate human output as a premium brand.

[0] https://www.nordstrom.com/s/gucci-new-ace-sneaker-women/4701...