> There is a very strong argument that if your work output can be discarded effectively in favor of a firehose of mediocre slop...

> The only people I see handwringing over AI slop replacing their jobs are people who produce things of quality on the level of AI slop. Nobody truly creative seems to feel this way.

Have you ever worked for an American company? They almost always choose slop over quality. Why should an executive hire employ a skilled American software engineer, when he can fire him and hire three offshore engineers who don't really know what they're doing for half the price? Things won't blow up immediately, there's a chance they'll just limp along in a degraded state, and by then executive will be off somewhere else with a bonus in his pocket.

Also, how many people are "truly creative" and how does that compare to the number of people who have to eat?

> then it is a moral imperative that we stop employing human beings in those roles as it’s a terrible waste of a human life.

And what should they do then? Sit around jerking off under a bridge?

There's no "moral imperative" to cast people off into poverty. And that's what will happen: there will be no retraining, no effort to find roles for the displaced people. They'll just be discarded. That's a "terrible waste of a human life."