Nearly every argument made in this piece could have been made (and probably was made) when the camera was invented. For example, the supposedly disparaging comment: "A product that generates images with little effort"

LLMs and AI image generators are just tools. Nothing more, nothing less. They are like cameras or paintbrushes. They must be wielded to produce art. Some cameras, say, wildlife cameras that flash whenever something steps on a pressure pad, aren't wielded and don't produce art. LLMs can do that whenever I ask ChatGPT to summarize a long document. That's not art. But when a person conceives a writing prompt and works with the tool over many iterations to craft a story... how is that different from an artist using any other tool?

These reflexive "AI-isn't-art" points of view are based on a wildly outdated view of how art is made. We have long celebrated video artists working in digital media. We cry when playing video games (at least I have). We, perhaps with some debate, accept art made by worker bees overseen by the actual "artist". Why is a person working with prompts any less of an artist than any of these artists? Simply put, they aren't.

AI left to its own devices won't spontaneously produce art, just as a camera left on a shelf won't magically take a picture, but it is a tool that can produce beautiful things and should be embraced and celebrated. We are living in an age when a new art form has been forged and that is a tremendously exciting thing.

The argument that was most compelling to me was about non-creative writing:

Not all writing needs to be creative, or heartfelt, or even particularly good; sometimes it simply needs to exist. Such writing might support other goals, such as attracting views for advertising or satisfying bureaucratic requirements. When people are required to produce such text, we can hardly blame them for using whatever tools are available to accelerate the process. But is the world better off with more documents that have had minimal effort expended on them? It would be unrealistic to claim that if we refuse to use large language models, then the requirements to create low-quality text will disappear. However, I think it is inevitable that the more we use large language models to fulfill those requirements, the greater those requirements will eventually become.

There is already lots of bullshit writing to accompany (Graeberean) bullshit jobs. Creating more of it, and making it even shittier, seems like a bad idea.