Well, the author says they keep up on "the latest papers" and whatnot, which leaves me as yet unconvinced of the artistic quality of the future output from these models. We will see.
While I'm still rambling on about this – the author states: “In a strictly mechanical sense, yes, an artist can still create, knowing that the art could be done faster and better by AI.” The art cannot necessarily be done better by an AI, and the speed with which art is created does not matter, artistically.
> In short, it's a mistake to judge AI art by its current capability. It's about to go on an exponential tour.
It's been going on one for the last five years. Two years ago it would have been difficult to generate a picture that's recognizably anything at all, using any non-specific engine.
Now we're down to complaints that mostly don't matter that much. Two years from now..?
While I'm still rambling on about this – the author states: “In a strictly mechanical sense, yes, an artist can still create, knowing that the art could be done faster and better by AI.” The art cannot necessarily be done better by an AI, and the speed with which art is created does not matter, artistically.