I agree with this...And that's a big point. The approach to post-scarcity is driven by simple profit motive... but that motive disappears once you've achieved the goal, by definition. Today, you'd build a songwriting robot because it would free you from having to pay a songwriter. But... post-scarcity, you already don't have to pay the songwriter. There is no need for the robot to exist!
BUT...
There are reasons to create songwriting AIs beyond the motive of replacing living songwriters. The most obvious one is to create tools to assist living songwriters.
And of course, genies DON‘T go willingly back into bottles. Even before we reach post-scarcity- asuming that we do, and that’s not a guarantee- creative professions will be endangered by automation as well. Tools that CAN replace humans WILL.
Because music, art, and all of that is subjective, most of the audience won’t care whether something was produced by human hands, as long as they find it enjoyable.
Exhibit 1a- AI created music:
Exhibit 1b- Brian Eno’s Reflection, available in multiple formats including an app that generates the music infinitely:

Brian Eno's next album does not end
Brian Eno's next album will be available as a generative app, allowing listeners to hear it as an endless, constantly changing stream of sound.

Exhibit 2- Christian Seidler’s Matricism:
To explain- Christian Seidler created an evolution of pointilism in which the paint is applied in 3 dimensions. Dots of colored paint are not just applied side to side on the canvas, but on top of each other. It is very labor intensive, and he only did about 30 canvasses by hand. With the help of the UT Austin robotics program (as I recall), he designed a machine which applies the paint for him. While he still programs the machine on what to paint, there is no reason why an AI couldn’t do something “in his style” once it was taught to do so.
Last edited: