I think this type of work is much better evidence for the claim of cultural homogeneity from the article: The photo series are all taken within short time windows of a couple of hours in the same location.
Instagram on the other hand contains billions of pictures from multiple locations taken over long periods of time. It is only natural to find some repetition and much harder to argue how much of that repetition can be attributed to lack of creativity.
> Most AI researchers and economists studying its consequences view it as a way of automating yet more tasks. No doubt, AI has this capability, and most of its applications to date have been of this mold — e.g., image recognition, speech recognition, translation, accounting, recommendation systems, and customer support. But we do not need to accept that this as the primary way that AI can be and indeed ought to be used.
I don't agree with the premise that automation is necessarily "the wrong kind of AI". Empowerment of workers as it is described in the article as a means of creating "many new, high-productivity tasks for labor" mostly requires automation of simpler routine tasks to be delegated. In that sense, I think the main problem is making AI tools accessible to the same people whose task is automated in the first place.
