I worked at a startup that has a blog. They used to pay a content farm company some monthly amount to generate a certain number of useless blog posts per week. Honestly, I don't think any value would be lost if they changed (and I would guess they have already) to using AI to do this task.
I see a good number of creative types lamenting this new world and hyping the word "slop" all of the time. It should be obvious to any one with a functioning brain that the world will separate into those who can use AI to be creative and those who can't. Anyone can buy a pencil but an artist can use the pencil to create something much better than the average person. Future artists will be able to use AI tools to create things much better than the average person even if they both have access to the same tools.
This sounds appealing, but there are two problems.
The first is that AI tools to date are incredibly limited and rigid. MJ is fixated on some arty poses (e.g. portraits with the face tilted back, eyes closed) so a lot of output defaults to those. This wouldn't be so bad if MJ gave you fine control over poses, colour, and so on. But those elements are so entwined in latent space that if you try the same prompt with a different colour you get a completely different result.
The second is that it may not matter. Human slop had taken over the Internet long before AI happened. (Content farm SEO writing, mediocre self-published genre fiction, mediocre genre art, low-effort formulaic video/movie content from the big studios, and so on.)
What's needed is inspired curation and gatekeeping. That's still happening in art to some extent, but it's a foreign concept to most of the creative industries.
So what you get is a conservative cultural process which selects unoriginal unchallenging work, especially if it's supported by effective marketing.
AI curation would be super useful, as an antidote - not just in the arts, but elsewhere.
You can imagine trained AI agents hunting through the slop and finding the gems/stand-out creators, which would add some interesting evolutionary dynamics.
Let's imagine your world, the one where an AI agent hunts through the slop and finds the stand out creators.
How would you feel if all of the stand-out creators it found were all AI? If your answer is "well, that wouldn't happen" then you may be committed to a view for ideological reasons.
Also consider that the feeds for Instagram, TikTok, YouTube etc. are more or less what you are asking for and they exist right now.
I don't think anyone considers Insta, TT, or YT the pinnacle of what's possible creatively.
As for AI gen - AI is making zero art on its own. It's all AI-assisted, whether that means a one word prompt or hours of editing.
I can imagine AI being better than humans at art of all kinds, as and when it gets a theory of mind. Whether that's a good thing or a bad one depends on how that's used. If it's designed entirely for addiction, that's a bad thing.
But we already have that.
More interestingly, I think AI has the potential to be better by breaking out of that loop.
So far I've only seen AI tools used to make things more average. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure the tools are up to making the artist more productive. This applies to the generative AI's only. Better editing tools certainly help and they help today, but I wouldn't call them intelligent on the level people are expecting agents to be.
Corporate blog posts are often times more for SEO and/or social proof that a company isn't dead. There's normally minimal new information conveyed (especially in the OPs case where it's not an internal domain expert but outside agency, so very simple concepts/basic news) so how much does it matter if the content is average?
No, future artists will make things that specifically cannot be made by AI. Because creativity and art is more a feeling and an opinion about your unique perception of life than some garbage being spit out by an AI.
Some future artists will make things that cannot be made by AI and some future artists will make things using AI. Unless you are arbitrarily deciding that the new definition of artist is "someone making art that explicitly doesn't use AI" which I suspect won't hold culturally.
As for the accusation that the only thing an AI can spit out is garbage, I think the classic cliché "garbage in, garbage out" applies. It is possible (and IMO likely) that the world will reward those who can get treasure out of AI and it will punish those who are only capable of getting garbage out of AI.
If you are the kind of person who believes that only garbage can come out of AIs then you will never be in the group that gets treasure out of an AI.
I see a good number of creative types lamenting this new world and hyping the word "slop" all of the time. It should be obvious to any one with a functioning brain that the world will separate into those who can use AI to be creative and those who can't. Anyone can buy a pencil but an artist can use the pencil to create something much better than the average person. Future artists will be able to use AI tools to create things much better than the average person even if they both have access to the same tools.