You quite studiously compared every ostensible disruption to the preceding state of the art to (quite convincingly IMO) reveal the material consequeces to be… less than world shattering, shall we say. Your example of Amazon and walmart does the converse.
And yet, with «stable diffusion» it is just so. Disruption is declared wholesale, without even passing mention of the preceding state of the art of computer generated art.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you not see the own goal here?
Gp calls out certain declarations of disruption to be hot air, then argues the point.
Gp then proceeds to declare «Stable Diffusion» to be Capital D disruptive, bemoans the unfortunate destiny of the world’s now disrupted artists but, curiously, does in fact not argue the point.
And yet, with «stable diffusion» it is just so. Disruption is declared wholesale, without even passing mention of the preceding state of the art of computer generated art.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you not see the own goal here?