Excellent realization. AI is fundamentally destructive, and is one reason I never use it, ever. Automation was never meant to infringe upon the creative domain, only the truly mechanical.

Can it really help with creative inspiration in the long term? I'd say the answer is no for most people.

And some people need a certain number of others who are also doing the same thing for the love of it. We are a social species after all. AI is taking that away.

Unfortunately, a lot of people need a sufficient mass of people who are also doing things to engage socially in the hobby. But AI is destroying that.

> What I mean by all this is that evolution and our brains will find a way to evolve and change our reward system.

I don't see how, because making your brain feel better these days is not tied to survival. There is no differential in survival probability to change the short-term reward system. In fact, the current capitalistic technological system rewards it.

Only if they are truly meaningful. Going to work just to further the system never really felt meaningful to me, even if it was a goal.

But don't you see, that's the prisoner's dilemma? But instead of playing that game, you should find new ways to rise above the AI mass production slop, such as emphasizing the hand-craftedness of your work. Sometimes, sticking to what's right is a better path, especially since you can at least feel pride in doing so.

> I think the key is that you are supposed to automate whatever feels boring for you

I disagree with that. The problem is, if you really think about it, even some of the initially boring tasks can be interesting if understood in a certain light, and the fact that we couldn't automate them before meant that we had the opportunity to stumble upon them.

Also, there is also satisfaction for many people to finally finish a task that they really slaved over.

Automating wasn't a problem when computers did only truly rote tasks. But AI spilled over into the creative domain and people should not automate even the boring parts of that because there are hidden rewards to sticking through those, because they are not truly as rote as they seem to be.

This has been the effect of technology for a while, at least mass communications technology. It exposes you to a pseudo-anoymous world of millions of people doing things but for which you have no context for their creation, only their output.

AI however brings it to a horrific next level, and really emphasizes the mass production of art.

Actually, the fact of the matter is that a lot of people derive joy of being the "sole creator" of what they do, or if they collaborate, to enrich human relationships when they do it. So, AI fundamentally takes away that joy because its outside the parameters of normal creation.

What you allude to is not so much "fact," as the "heart" of the matter. The availability of AI tooling takes away nothing; you elect to either use it, or not. I personally hate having to deal with human editors! Most of them typically fit in two broad categories: guns-for-hire and genuine collaborators. The "fact" of the matter is such that AI does not prevent me from collaborating with any of my peers, however, it does allow me to pseudo-collaborate with the writers long-dead! In fact, I happen to maintaib a collection of theatrical play-journals, riddled with conversations I've had at the time with various historical figures vis-à-vis AI. This is the single most valuable source of inspiration enabling my writing in ways that my peers never could. AI-assisted writing is a misnomer—it's not about writing as much as reading, and moreso playing, which is how we get creative.

Wittgenstein would absolutely love it!

It doesn't surprise me that those of us to have failed in keeping up with the constantly-evolving AI tooling, would also make it part of their newly-refined, all-human identity. IMHO, similarly to how hating popular things does not make you cool, not using AI does not make you a joyous independent creator to bravely hold post in the treacherous world of AI slop! It sounds more like a fantasy than coherent creative position. We're still in the early days when it comes to creative writing comprehension in AI. You may or may not be surprised that there's very little to show for in terms of evals when it comes to that. Unlike coding and maths, fiction is yet to be recognised as verifiable domain. (Probably due to probability distribution in fictional outputs not necessarily converging the way of related objective rewards!) However, some labs are working it! There's a huge market for creative writing aids, as it'a necessary to everything from education (as story-telling is what makes studying worthwhile) to political work.