So, about 20-30 years ago, digital art and 'desktop publishing' happened. We can see the change this made in the various mediums, significant on one hand, and just another step forward on the other.

There are better people than myself to chime in, but the poor artist blames his tools.

As a writer, someone who, you know, writes, would you prefer to say , "hey computer, write a story about some guys on a thing and then something crazy happens"...

Or... Would you prefer to you know, write the story?

If you're the type that has a hard time writing a story, you wouldn't really be a writer by trade, you'd be more of an enthusiast that needs help.

Fine Artists have only embraced digital art in so far as it motivates their craft. Obviously, every artist is different... Most artists like to arrive at their concepts because, you know, they identify as artists.

If you have some way of measuring change, it might be hard to know the difference, when the outcome is meant to relate to the human condition.

Sure, we will see new approaches to prototyping, optimizing, ideation, mass-content creation. Fine Art tends to be made for humans and by humans, generative art isn't new. Corporate branding has historically been an arms race in fidelity and more recently anthropocentric appropriation...

If anything, AI tech will help commercialize and cheapen "art" for profits as well as create a wider gap between something authentic and relatable.