many people are bemoaning that AI is going to replace them. this includes notably artists, but we can expect it to start covering mathematicians and, as AI advances, eventually every kind of human endeavor.
there are real, important material concerns, such as artists losing their income, or AI getting so powerful that it destroys everything. this post is not about that, but rather about the longer-term concern of ethically grounding the value of art.
is it okay that AI is outcompeting our creativity? yes! in my opinion, we should never have been grounding valuing ourselves in our ability to be the best at stuff to begin with. we should love ourselves and what we make and do intrinsically, not instrumentally.
it is valid to want to just watch art for the pleasure that that gives you, and it's even okay to wirehead yourself. but it's also valid to value art as a form of communication between real persons, as a special case of the fact that it's valid to care about reality, even if you can't tell.
and the fact that we currently can't tell if art was made by persons or AIs is only a temporary issue; with properly aligned AI, we should be able to tell it "i only want art made by humans!" and have it ensure we only get that, whatever that request would mean upon sufficient reflection.
artists, mathematicians, philosophers, and humans in general: aim not to compete! i, and no doubt many others, value you and the things you make for the fact that they are yours and you are real, in a way that fundamentally, intrinsically excludes purely AI-made art, and which includes art made with a mixture of human and AI work in whatever way i would eventually find reasonable if i thought about it enough.
if you want to just love doing things and love things others have done, you can just do that.