That is true only in theory.

The capitalist system requires gigantic levels of wealth inequality. So while some people will paint pictures on Mars, the majority will dwell broke in abject poverty on earth.

How an AGI will rule is hard to forsee.

AI represents a new kind of 'paintbrush' for the artist then, one that is now easier and more accessible than ever. There is already disquiet from artists about how AI is able to generate art in their particular style and along with that perhaps a sense of injustice as well.

Art has traditionally taken skill, learned and honed over many years. So perhaps there's a sense of superiority with some traditional artists in that traditional art (of all kinds) is much more difficult to create, and therefore might be considered more meaningful even, than prompting an AI to generate a piece instead.

I think this is like saying a written, handcrafted manuscript is more meaningful than a modern novel written in a word document. I mean the former is harder to create, but the later produces better results for more people in less time. It's been a democratising of the authorship process. AI generated art offers the same now, more people can take their imagination and bring it to life, no longer as bound by limitations of skill, talent and ability.

> The capitalist system requires gigantic levels of wealth inequality.

Nah

I admit, that from the current state of our society this idea depicts an utopia.

And it remains to be seen how those rapidly changing circumstances alter the way we live. Yet I remain (probably falsely) positive and hope that we learn from the illustrations of dystopian "cyber futures" and steer to a more positive future!

I agree and real craftsmanship won’t go anywhere, it’s been a debate for a long time, somehow we need to disburse artists for their work. First step would be to widely accept it as real work. But that’s a problem on a higher level. Yet, as the younger generation becomes the older generation, I am pretty sure that change is on the horizon.

And I’m very curious how the latest lawsuit around AI art (YouTube Video from Corridor Crew) goes on. It probably is going to be a milestone we really need.

As someone working 8+ hours with Midjourney AI every day, I think what people will come to see is that image AI won't stop the work involved -- it will just raise the baseline of what's possible and expected. Yes, you can make an AI image in 5 seconds, but your image will not be seen in the flood of other images. It still takes an original concept, or extra process like stacking and retouching in Photoshop, turning it into a video, or making a comic out of it to be seen. And in the end, that means you'll still be working 8 hours a day on that thing.

Looks like dystopia for now, every data point is regressing. There is also the question what an AGI will think of humanity?

Brought up in a hyper capitalist society it might, rightfully so, come to the conclusion that darwinism is the natural state of the world. Since humans place no value in the common good amongst themselves, why should an artificial intelligence? Thus, wipe out humanity.

Even the most powerfull trillionaire is nothing to an ASI and it's capabilities, eventually.

Honestly, I think a Cultural Singularity is a side-effect of a Technological Singularity. People are going to have to define themselves and find meaning in new ways after AGI/ASI and getting there is going to be a tricky process that we've only taken the first stumble upon. Art and culture seem like obvious focus points now... but it could be something completely different. We can't know.

Substructure determines the superstructure. Where have I heard that before. : )

Don't assume Capitalism.