> The writing skills that became worthless for this guy were the ones that weren't worth much to begin with.

Exactly. The market price for anything is determined by both demand and supply. The demand for good writing is relatively unchanged. The supply is also relatively unchanged. In the case prior to ChatGPT that demand and that supply were somewhat low, or as you say - not worth much to begin with.

Oh sure, there's always the Stephen King's and Tom Clancy's of the world, but guess what? They were always the exception anyway and they will continue to be. The same argument can be made for musicians.

Considering Tom Clancy became Tom Clancy(tm) several years before he died, heavily using ghostwriters...

Shows how a prominent author becomes a brand. Tom Clancy isn't the only one. These authors are to their books as fashion designers are to their lines at mainstream retail outlets.

> Stephen King's

Stephen King has written so much by now, his new books are basically remixed versions of his old books. Stephen King has become his own ChatGPT.

(No accident either - the guy is a writing machine - 30 pages a day, no breaks, that's over 50 200 page books a year...)

Those are interesting examples, in that they are both commercially successful despite conventionally poor writing. In literary circles, King is often regarded as somebody who could write well but chooses not to because it would be less lucrative. Clancy is bad enough that criticism seems unnecessary. AI could certainly write a Clancy-esque Dad Fantasy.

I agree with you wholly in reality, but we're not discussing the definition of writers, we're discussing a qualified definition of writers. The qualifier is "economic worth".

We're not disagreeing, you're just talking about something different than the topic of the OP.