(I have a TV in the other room that I don't use the remote with... It needs batteries, and I don't care enough to replace them. heh. And on a philosophical level, a TV that has equal capability between it's remote, and on-device buttons, will always be superior. If you lose the remote, the device still functions as intended. However, society seems to be forgetting the importance of redundancy by preservation of history and historic functionality.)
Not about society. It's a practice that's been going on since around the 1930's called 'Planned obsolescence'. As well as the fact that corporations are greedy, they will cut costs literally anywhere they can. Some, like DuPont, have even gone so far as to put themselves in the history books by making nearly one hundred thousand people sick, some of which even died from their illnesses.
But actually, no, the cutting down buttons on the TV thing is more a thing of cutting costs, than planned obsolescence, since anyone can go out and buy a universal remote if they lose theirs.
Evolution, and progress, is rarely ever about a culling of the old, to be replaced by the new. I think a lot of people think of it that way; but, it's not, or at least doesn't seem to be meant to be.
When a tree grows, the roots extend, along with the branches and the leaves; but, the main stem always remains. Everything is a continuation. Certain branches may die off, certain leaves may get replaced, the main trunk may even be removed, and still the roots may sprout a new one.
Certain things, cultures, ways of life, knowledge, does perhaps die; and, that's sad some times, and other times may be a good thing. But, I don't think art and the artists that make it, are going anywhere.
Progress that bears fruit, is like that of a tree. The old ways are necessary for the the new ways to give way, and the new ways rely on, and are built upon the old; and when the fruit of progress is born, the cycle repeats.
This isn't any form of necessary evolution or innovation though. The TV remote was a good thing, since getting up every time you want to change the channel, is just a hassle. And that would only be compounded in the modern day with so many more functions added. If I had to get up every time I wanted to skip a sex scene on a show, or alcohol glorification scene; I'd be a goddamned Olympic athlete by now..
But the remote comparison was more about the level of effort that anyone is willing to put into anything these days.
Also, a lot of people don't get into art, because of self doubt. And if you're one of those people that feels like they couldn't paint/draw to save their lives, and you've got two options in front of you, and one of those options involves hitting a buncha buttons, tweaking a few options, and typing a few things. And that option will give you results that'd make the Mona Lisa look like a pile of dog crap. And the other option is years of practice, technique, .etc; in order to put out art that still isn't quite as polished as the former option. Well, which are ya gonna end up picking?
Keeping in mind that depression is a bigger pandemic in the modern day, than Covid. So self doubt is in no short supply.
I agree with you on most points; but, I don't think it's necessary to be alarmed. Imagine how painters felt, when the camera started to proliferate. I think even Socrates, is rumored to have had a bad opinion of, 'books,' in that they would make people lazy.
This is different than that, or digital art, or even the graphic tablet. Those devices make things easier for artists. But AI art basically replaces artists, or the need for artists. At least that's the potential it has. Much like self check-outs at the grocery store, it removes a large portion of the human element from our society.
And while a camera can capture a landscape far more accurately than even the best artists, save maybe the best artists that also have photographic memory; and a camera filter can even make those pictures look painted. Well, AI art just takes that step past the line, beyond anything that's come before. It creates unique art that actually looks like it was performed by a human.
I kinda feel like it's a move by Skynet from the Terminator movies, but Skynet is just super passive aggressive, lol..
Personally I think it's getting focus now because it's the latest gimmick, it's something that'll subside eventually.
There was probably a time in which people thought that about smartphones.
With all the life and politics aside, it completely depends on how you view art. Some people find art by the end product, not by who - or what - made it.
Well, in all honesty, it's not likely to have that big of an impact on the people buying it. Obviously you'll still have some that will prefer art done by a human. Just like there's still people that buy records for music because they find that they sound more authentic. I'm not saying that it'll wipe out the entire concept of human artists. Only that it will likely remove a large part of the human element. Human artists will likely become more of a niche. And I personally think that will be a sad day for humanity.
I'm reminded of the depression gone through by Robin Williams, and Jim Carey. They both hit a wall, didn't see much left to life. Robin Williams found his end on the toilet. Jim Carey found art.