I had one of these. It's super cool but honestly not that useful unless you're planning to write a novel on the go.

I'd like to defend you here. I'm not sure what khamelean even means when they complain about anecdotal evidence and sample data, as you are making a philosophical point and you've outlined a valid premise. It's actually a very dismissive comment on their part.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that the method in which "AI" works is to harmonise and blend existing content, and in doing so, it both exposes and promotes the common features of what we do. And the scale and scope at which this operates means that it could stifle novel thinking, by both overexposing people to the same repeated concepts, and devaluing creative works (perhaps by mass production and efficiency) in a way that discourages people from producing novel content.

I think this is a reasonable concern, but it brings to mind older philosophical debates, like how you can define art (if at all). You have to tackle that problem first if you are to make a case for the distinction between the value of AI generated art and art produced by a human.