Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.
Why couldn’t an AI do that?
Same question.
This will only work because of the parasocial aspect, and there will probably be strong competition from AI there too.
For every thing you imagine, simply ask yourself - will AI be able to do it better?
So far I haven’t heard anything convincing where the answer would be “no”.
This whole “giving inputs” argument is 100% leaning on today’s technological limitations.
With enough advancements, no input you could ever come up with will be able to compete with the automated ones - even if they are working from some very high level goal, like “make something people want” (to give a slightly exaggerated example).
Nobody’s going to pay you to utter the phrase “make something people want” (and it’s not competitive as a business either).
For now it can’t, but it will in the future. Still we will always need someone that has to check on it in case something happens. And AI kinda needs to be prompted to do things if the checks say everything is fine the AI will always think it’s ok even if it’s not doing what it’s suppose to do. That’s why we still have infrastructure and monitoring teams. If everything would have been automatized for any niche and particular issues that can arise it would have been done a long time ago.