First, it displays a certain kind of intellectual laziness of a type I've seen before: Arguing against "pundits", "influencers" and "voices", without naming a single person whose specific arguments the author is arguing against. >>

This allows Rosenberg to caricature the position he is refuting while making it hard for the reader to dispel the caricature, since the original is not pointed to. >>

Second, he cites Ayn fucking Rand with (apparently) a straight face. >>

He also conflates the form of language (and art) with the actual thing: "produce content" as if output for which no one has accountability (and which represents no one's communicate intent) has any value in the world. >>

Experience is central -- no art has any "qualitative value" without experience. Now, people can attribute meaning to synthetic images, but that is also an experience. But as UW's Gabriel Solis once put it so well: writing, art, performance -- these are ways of being human *together*. >>

The words, the pixels, the sound waves aren't the art. The art is in the experience of the artist and the audience, together. >>

Meanwhile, Rosenberg also consistently displaces accountability: "AI" hasn't done anything. Companies have amassed large collections of stolen art and used them to produce systems with which they and others can create synthetic images. >>

Other companies, who would have previously hired artists, are taking advantage of cheaply produced synthetic images which are only cheap because they are based on stolen art + heavily subsidized by venture capitalists sustaining this bubble. >>

And also unwittingly subsidized by ordinary people paying higher electricity prices when data centers move in: www.cnbc.com/2025/11/26/a... >>

Meanwhile, note the logical leaps here: People creating art based on their experience of others' art is not equivalent to what happens with the large image models munging pixels together. And what is the evidence that "AI" systems will have "sparks of inspiration"? >>

I don't think it's a coincidence that the CEOs of AI companies all tend to be very intellectually lazy lol

It's not laziness, exactly. More that your chance at a gargantuan payday if you can keep the rubes in awe until at least the day after your company's IPO *requires* that you insist on the technology's inevitable revolutionary impact in the face of any criticism. (Upton Sinclair said it better.)

Yet another 'some day, some way' article. "It's not doing any of these things YET, but hoo boy, just you wait!" and so it gets thrown on to the 'all sizzle, no steak' pile with all of the others

they misspelled "technological shit"

Thanks, I started reading it, which confirmed what you had posted. I almost wanted to add some further observations, but then decised that it was just a dishonest piece and nobody should waste more time on it. Now I have to question the platform. Big Think seems all too keen to embrace Big Lies.

s/decised/decided

One can, of course, just wait. Either it is a bubble, in which case it will burst, or it is not a bubble, in which case it will not burst.

Even the by-line is a deliberately intellectually dishonest fallacy. Those who dismiss AI generated content as mere slop or who think the market is economically inflated (and some have more nuanced positions too) are actually confronting the problem, not ignoring it.