Survivorship bias. You can't tell at some point. You probably already are listening to AI songs, and looking at AI images. You can only tell what you know. Given the amount generated daily its more probable than improbable.
Do you not put thought into what you listen to? I don't just passively have music forced down my throat like I'm a duck being fattened for foie gras, I actively choose what I listen to and I know the artists involve don't use AI.
Whether or not the AI can "fool" me is totally irrelevant to my point. Yes, one-shot prompts will be able to make content I can't distinguish from something made by a human, if they can't do so already. Some of it will probably sneak its way in to my media diet (though the fact that most of the music I listen to was composed over 100 years ago makes it less likely for me than most). But if I were halfway through a novel that was absolutely blowing my mind when I learned it was created by a publisher punching "write me a book that'll sell good" into ChatGPT 8, I would instantly lose all interest. I would also have unbounded fury at said publisher for dishonestly marketing such a book to me. The point of art is not just to indulge my own sensibilities. It is to connect me to other people.
What if it was an author punching that in, and then refining it to make it sound less like AI? Or an author structuring their chapters with the help of AI? Or an author fixing their spelling using AI? Or rewording sentences using AI? Or an author brainstorming with an AI to create the idea of the book,and then writing it themselves? Or an author writing half the book, and then asking an AI to finish the other half using the initial style?
If you start living in some kind of idealist world where you say that you will drop the book upon the understanding of the process over the outcome, you inevitably have to start to deal with the definitions like this.
