While AI can’t be creative in the human sense it can sufficiently fake it and that might be enough. Do you really think that most people consuming media made by artists ever stop and think “that movie was entertaining and the special effects looked cool - let me look up that visual artist”.

Also, look at what most people are consuming. It is “just content” they ask for, content shall be served. To differentiate yourself in a literary manner (as a writer) far enough from AI content you would probably delve deeper into heavy thoughts and artfully crafted prose than most normies would be able to comprehend.

I absolutely am on your side of the fence of the AI debate but I think we shouldn’t be naive about it. Not us as artists will judge if AI is just good enough, the audience and ultimately the market will. If you can produce one stellar book a year and you are up against someone creating 20 AI generated books of mediocre quality you are still in trouble just by sheer volume.

Most people in book stores will sift through the books and probably buy a book more likely if it has a great cover. I don’t think anyone ever said “oh let’s find out who was the cover artist on that one”.

If it was a mysterious young artist in LA or some dude in Pakistan with Midjourney will be of no interest to 98% of readers. If the result is satisfying enough people will be pleased and consume AI content no questions asked.

Look up “AI covers” on YouTube. It’s frightening how good some of them are. Yes I am pretty sure a certain german dictator didn’t sing “Barbie Girl” but Marilyn Manson going for “Hurt” is not that unlikely and if you don’t know about the history of that song and don’t have your official cover version list at hand, you could be fooled as this being real and even like it too.

And things will only escalate from that.


It’s hard enough as is to sell “art” to a wide enough audience to make and living. AI will not help.

Besides that a really nice piece, thank you for that!