Totally agree.
This is what Instagram and YouTube did and we got MrBeast and Kylie Jenner making billions of dollars. The cost of creating content is tapping record on your phone and the traditional "quality" as defined by visuals doesn't matter (see Quibi). Viral videos are selfies recorded in the bedroom.
When you lower the barrier to entry things get more heterogeneous, not less. So you have bigger outcomes, not smaller, because the playing field expands. TikTok's inside was built on surfacing the 1 good video from a pool of 10s of millions. The platforms that surface the best content will be even more important.
It's a little disheartening, I think, for people to think that the only reason they can't be creative is money, time, or technical skill, but in reality, it's just that they aren't that creative.
So yes, everyone can create content in a world of AI, but not everyone is a good content creator/director/artist (or has the vision), same as it is now.
I don't think Mr Beast is particularly creative. He makes common denominator crap that appeals to kids. I expect the same of Kylie Jenner
Meanwhile the cost of his videos is insanely high. The "insane" price money is the smallest part of it. He has insane sets he uses for only one or a small number of videos, he has a giant staff, high quality gear and many of his videos include either challenges going on over very long timespans or involving a high number of participants, making the logistics, recording and editing of those videos challenging and time intensive. Most TV shows could only dream of doing what he does.
He started out simple, pointing a phone camera at himself counting really high, but his current channel is not a great example of a low barrier to entry. He explicitly sets himself apart by doing what other youtube creators or TV shows simply can't do
You may not like them, as another poster said, it's all subjective.
That doesn't mean they aren't incredibly good at what they do and that millions (billions) of people have tried to do what they have and failed.
One of the reasons it's "common denominator crap" is because the blob of the internet has 100s of millions of videos copying MrBeast and the Jenner/Kardasians created an entire generation of people that wanted to be influencers. Most of the copies are Slop.
Once they are intrenched they can continue to produce "crap" as you call it because they have distribution, the copies don't work because they aren't novel, which makes people feel like it doesn't take talent and is the algorithms fault, until the next person to be "creative" gets distribution and the cycle repeats.
There is just a lot less creativity than people imagine. It's not a right that we all have as humans; it's rare. 8.2 billion people on earth, 365 days in a year, 3 trillion shots on goal, and only a few hundred novel discoveries, art creations, companies, and ideas come from it.
Will the AI itself never be a good content creator/director/artist?
People are always out there tying to convince others that AI is better than humans at X. How close is it to being better than humans at being a content creator itself? Or how long before that threshold is crossed?
It will always be subjective. There will always be holdouts who will denounce any AI work as "bad" simply because it was created by AI.
Even when AI is objectively better and dominates in blind ratings tests, there will still be a strong market for "authentic" media.
For instance we already have factories that churn out wares that are cheaper, stronger, better looking, and longer lasting than "hand made", yet people still seek out malformed $60 coffee mugs from the local artistan section in country shops.
I think the other angle is a deeper question of why are you reading/viewing/listening to any particular piece?
For some content, say summer blockbusters the answer may just be that it is moderately entertaining way to spend some time. I expect AI may well be able to do reasonably well in this category, although what we find entertaining may well shift if the supply/demand curve shifts drastically enough. In other words, people may still pay to see a new action film even if it hasn't anything particularly new to say.
Then there is the more cerebral kind of art. Where there is an actual message that someone is trying to communicate to us. It's a form of argument, but not purely logical, but also aesthetical. I'm completely unconvinced that present day AI architectures will ever have something to say, purely because they lack agency, and so there isn't anyone there saying it to us.
Finally, there is the art that is entirely spiritual or internal. The whole point of that kind is the author baring their soul to us. Why on earth would anyone want a soulless machine barring their non-existent soul?
No single piece of content grossed 100m though. It just allowed for more low investment content at a higher rate, while the popularity of the site pushed them to celebrity status.