[notahacker]

> How do you know a huge portion of people engage in useless hobbies with no meaningful external outputs?

How many hobbyists' hobbies all meet the thread-relevant standard of usefulness with meaningful external outputs (e.g. producing creative work with comparable or greater value to people outside their social circle than hypothetical superb AI alternatives... or the abundance of writing and painting and recorded media and manufactured goods and software already out there available at little or no cost)? What proportion of the population would you say undertook literally no activities which could be described as hobbies? The difference between those two numbers is your portion of people who engage in "useless" hobbies with no meaningful output.

People still play chess badly against human opponents even though computers can play it perfectly (or with dialled down difficulty); even using computers with perfectly adequate chess playing programs installed to seek out remote human opponents. People spend hours trying to play Stairway to Heaven borderline adequately despite the fact anyone can listen to Stairway to Heaven played by Jimmy Page on demand, and has been able to for very little outlay for half a century now. Even if fans could ever be persuaded that the music the AI was generating was superior to that created by Led Zeppelin, why would people interested in playing music cease to be interested in playing music?

A hobby is something people choose to do primarily for enjoyment rather than profit; it's almost a tautology that [further] reducing the potential for profit by spamming the space with AI-generated outputs isn't going to greatly discourage people from doing it.