I like the insight about the AI-generated images being fed back into the data-set AI uses to create new images(or text or whatever). As a human, I don't like this; AI(and the universe/humanity) where always headed this way, and this is just the beginning, AI replacing the work of humans, from the universes perspective this is simply progress. From our perspective we are being replaced, made obsolete. This is a perfect example of a precursor to the kind of feedback loops involving AI learning from AI that will eventually allow computers to far exceed human capability - though this is still a rudimentary version of it since it can't evolve in a fundamental way, just get a bit better a specific kinds of content generation.

Just as going from inanimate matter to life(encoding data via DNA) was, just as going from simple life to animals that can think and sense/process data was, just as going from animals processing via instinct to humans processing via logic and reason was, just as humans creating language and writing to collaborate and collect/process data in mass across generations was, and now to machines that will collect and process data at a level that is beyond human comprehension, it's all progress in a certain direction that's been consistently moving forward since the beginning of time. The universe is getting better at understanding itself.

That being said, I know the more practical, immediate consequences of this are more relevant right now. I have to say I disagree about the articles implication that this kind of mimicking, "purely statistical" generation of "new" content is in any way different than what humans do when creating art(it may be, but it's certainly not a given). I'm not much of a materialist, but even I somewhat lean towards the idea that the human mind and it's ability to create art is completely replicable via machines - most people agree that "new" and "original" art is always still just a unique combination of different ideas that came before it. Some even argue that it's fundamentally impossible for a person to have a genuinely original thought, or at the very least all thoughts are just combining different combinations pre-existing concepts into a set number of pre-determined "shapes" or patterns of relation(isomorphisms?) that the human mind is capable of(something akin to "archetypes"). After all, neural networks were modeled after the human brain, and although they aren't as advanced(yet), especially in terms of generalizing which is crucial for generating art, they likely aren't doing anything fundamentally different, and there's no reason they won't eventually become as advanced/complicated as the human brain - and then surpass it completely.

I'm going to contradict myself again though, and say that despite all of that I'm still open to the idea that the human mind contains some "extra element" that isn't quantifiable or replicable in the material world. I don't think that all the phenomena of the mind or the universe can be explained via pure materialism, and given that, it is likely that there is an element of the human mind, or soul, or spirit, that is truly "mystical", and a cold, calculating machine with no soul doesn't have access to this other realm of "stuff". The only reason I'm not convinced of this argument, is because of my original point about how it's clear the universe has been headed in this direction, and though I could never hope to understand it, I don't see a reason to suppose that the universe is going to stop it's trend of becoming increasingly capable of understanding and organizing itself(data) for our sake.