For individuals, though, might competitiveness often be driven by insecurity, and the point stands?

I'm surprised how often Freudian ideas like projection are accepted uncritically despite what seems to be weak evidence for them. The article's exercise might prompt some useful introspection, but is there any strong reason to still treat projection as a valid psychological concept rather than just pop psychology?

Excellent art might be attributed less to genius and more to a selection process and creator-audience feedback loops.

We might be falling into a bit of survivorship bias when missing that excellent art is the product of a variety of processes, not just human inspiration.

Machines can probably replicate much of that process, for better or worse.

Artists are very rarely concerned with their audience. Good Art, capital A, is the unique expression of a singular consciousness - you can't produce that by catering to an audience. That's just a product (see Warhol).

Yes, art is a product, particularly in the context of this conversation about AI.

Very little is the unique expression of a singular consciousness.

Art being "good" is subjective and the audience is the source of that valuation.

Art is only a product if you have a repugnantly rapacious worldview.

I don't mean art's value is only as a commodity, but I do mean that most of art's value is for its audience, not just the satisfaction of the creator.

The view of art as not intentionally for others, and with concern for their appreciation, might actually be more off-putting.