Fuck, this annoys me so much. The new-ish sony games are awful with it (Spider-man and GoW at least), providing beautiful, intricate worlds and levels to explore, but if you aren't sprinting toward the next objective at every moment, it constantly bombards you with little nagging voicelines from npcs or even the main character themselves. I hate it.
Holding a button to do anything/everything. I can see the logic of where it may be useful, but it doesn't need to be used for everything. So damn annoying.
*Oh, and similarly, forcing excessive submenus to do basic things, like continue a save from the main menu. That should be one, maybe two button presses, not 4+ along with a confirmation. I'll never understand games with stuff like that.
I love containers, but it has a pretty frustrating and unfriendly ui. If something else allowed sorting and categorizing, I think that'd be an upgrade.
That you can't see or appreciate the intent of the artist behind those doesn't mean it's not there or not important. Why they were made or how they are used in the end is not important. All that matters is how they were made.
The impact on livelihoods is important, but it's ultimately unrelated to defining what art is. My consideration of art is not one born of fear of losing money, but purely out of appreciation for the craft. I don't think it's entirely fair to suggest all the criticisms against generated art is solely borne of self-preservation.
In regards to corporate "art", all the things you listed, even stock images, are certainly not the purest form of artistry, but they still have (or, at least had) intent suffusing their creation. I suppose the question then is - is there a noticeable difference between the two for corporations? Will a generated logo have the same impact as a purposefully crafted on does? In my experience, the generated products I've noticed feel distinctly hollow. While past corporate assets are typically hollow shells of real art, generated assets are even less. They're a pure concentration of corporate greed and demand, without the "bothersome" human element. Maybe that won't matter in their course of business, but I think it might. Time will tell.
Tim Minchin has always come across as a good egg to me. It's nice to hear he's of the same mind, and I particularly like the optimism he's promoting in his predictions for artistry going forward.
I made a comment about a week ago about how copying people's art is still art, and it was a bit of an aha moment as I pinpointed for myself a big part of why I find image generators and the like so soulless, inwardly echoing a lot of what Inman lays out here.
All human made art, from the worst to the best, embodies the effort of the artist. Their intent and their skill. Their attempt to make something, to communicate something. It has meaning. All generative art does is barf up random noise that looks like pictures. It's impressive technology, and I understand that it's exciting, but it's not art. If humans ever end up creating actual artificial intelligence, then we can talk about machine made art. Until then, it's hardly more than a printer in terms of artistic merit.
I never trusted it. It was the first big move by tv/movie studios to stream their own IP instead of Netflix, and the beginning of the fractious mess of media services we now have. It was also very evident that it being "free" (with ads, of course) was just a way to pull in users to squeeze later with steadily increasing subscriptions. An example of actual "enshitiffication", a dumb word which nobody uses correctly.
An actor is not the character they play.