Robingoodfellow

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the article there is a gallery of items from the museum, along with detailed descriptions.

I also don't find it all implausible that goods from New York made there way to this region in the 1920's. As the article mentions, although the connection point between Europe and East Asia was severed by the Ottomans, small sections of the trade network continued for centuries afterwards.

>You will still be able to art, even if AI art becomes better.

I don't know, maybe all the artists, musicians, and poets will be too tired from doing whatever menial labor bullshit jobs are left post AI to create great art.

Why not direct our efforts into enabling more people to devote their lives to creating art instead of fewer? Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone was able to spend their time creating because the machines were doing the work we actually didn't want to do?

I really enjoyed the perspective of this author and the article's contemplative tone. I think an important perspective is that these are tools for consumers, not creators. While we are all obviously both to a degree, the current economic model makes a clear distinction.

When it comes to monetary exchange, we are either artists or consumers. AI art has the potential to create a massive imbalance between these two fields, reducing the friction of being a consumer, and greatly reducing the number of people who are able to support themselves as artists. If you view yourself chiefly as a consumer this might (very narrowly) be viewed as a positive.

The social cost however is creating a society that favors consumption over creation, and weights incentives accordingly