Bit of a tangent, but hey, gotta start somewhere...

Up until now that work would not exist if the person who wanted it could not (or would not) pay the market's price for it.

As of now that work has the potential to exist, in ever-increasing (and varying) quantity and quality.

Whether it will spare anyone is irrelevant. What matters is how human creators choose to respond to the genie when it's out of the bottle. IMO, those that can use the technology to create more innovative works are the ones that will fare better. That includes poor old poets :)

That is the nature of innovation in a market economy, is it not? I agree that this technology gives publishers a potentially lucrative revenue stream of varying quality, and that will make it hard for human artists to compete, regardless of medium. What I disagree with is the assumption that no one else, including those human artists, will benefit from that same technology. The most likely outcome is some artists will learn how to use it to create newer forms of art, and some of that art will be be profitable enough to earn a living.

I disagree - it absolutely *is* another tool. A tool can be used by anyone who wishes to wield it: artists, publishers, the audience itself. For example, I am not much of a musician - I do poetry myself. I don't have a lot of money to pay someone to illustrate a collection of those poems, or put background music to them. These tools give me what I cannot (or at times, do not wish) to pay for. Yes, a publisher can generate work based off their back catalog - that is a concern, but quite frankly, it is not mine.

Humans have been using technology to make music since we started banging sticks together. Sticks became drum sticks became drum machines. This is yet another step in the evolution of tool use. Sure, we'll get a tsunami of dreck, but sooner or later we'll find a Rachmaninoff or Run-DMC. More than one, most likely. Play on, child of humankind, play on.