Incidentally, David Foster Wallace would have loved ChatGPT: finally, he no longer needed to write, he could now dedicate all his time to watching television [1].
Really contestable, actually, not certain.
This is also addressed in the text:
> Can large-language models help humans with the creation of original writing? To answer that, we need to be specific about what we mean by that question. There is a genre of art known as Xerox art, or photocopy art, in which artists use the distinctive properties of photocopiers as creative tools. Something along those lines is surely possible with the photocopier that is ChatGPT, so, in that sense, the answer is yes. But I don’t think that anyone would claim that photocopiers have become an essential tool in the creation of art; the vast majority of artists don’t use them in their creative process, and no one argues that they’re putting themselves at a disadvantage with that choice.
So, yes, ChatGPT will probably not be essential in the creation of art, even today you could write a great novel with merely $10 for pencil and paper, but it will be better with ChatGPT or similar tools: faster to find the word, easier to iterate over the possibilities of a phrase, helpful to evaluate parallel scenarios, and other use cases to be found by great writers.
Sure, there might be an issue for the artists themselves: who do you reward, is it "valid" art, and so forth. But as a reader, ChatGPT hints that the greatest works of literature are yet to come: hundreds of times while reading a page I would have wanted to read a hundred more pages about a particular aspect but the author went frustratingly in another direction. In this case, the author might be elevated, from the laborer putting words on paper, to a generator of directions to be followed by the generator of text, in the same manner Michelangelo, Caravaggio, or Gaudi directed the painters, sculptors, and workers to execute accordingly.
