Looking beyond your sophomoric tone, I understand where you’re at, but I think these arguments on both sides are silly. OP makes a valid point in regard to the sentimentality behind creating art. You’re right in that no art “should” be a a particular thing or shape, but I am with OP that asking the question “what will happen to us culturally” is necessary every time a new tool arrives. The maximalist “all things are tools for artists” works in theory, but tools have changed cultures drastically, and that is very easy to point out throughout history.

I also find it comical that you thrust your opinion on what art is upon OP and say they are a “conformist hypocrite.” Both of you just hold an opinion on art and culture that differ, nothing more. To use your words, it’s personal and you have no say in how they should interact with or interpret art. When it comes to art, neither of your opinions, or Google’s, matters.

I agree with your aesthetic principles. I think the difficulties and reservations, for me at least, arise when you consider the economic framework and the possible shifts that will happen. I can't see adoption of these tools doing anything other than giving these giant conglomerates yet more capital, yet more power.