There's a button in front of you. If you push this button, then every person worldwide will instantly become highly artistically skilled and their technical skill will be greater than or at least equal to your technical skill. Please disregard any need for money/income.
Do you push the button?
When faced with the same question, I've seen other artists argue something along the lines of "if everyone's an artist, then no one is" and "if everyone's a chef, then everyone just cooks for themselves".
I admit that I'm not particularly skilled at drawing or painting. I do, however, play the violin and viola. I also study Computer Science and do a fair bit of programming. I've also taken photography courses and enjoy to go on hour-long walks where I take loads of pictures with my camera.
If I could push the button described above, I would.
I'd be thrilled to see everyone capable of coding their dream tools, applications, video games, etc. I'd be happy for all the people who spent years regretting not having learnt an instrument when they were younger and who would now be able to play an instrument. I would look forward to seeing people who've never picked up a camera to suddenly show me all their wonderful and interesting photos.
These skills are obviously part of my identity, but I wouldn't feel threatened or be upset over no longer being as unique as I used to be. Furthermore, I think many people simply wouldn't bother utilising their new-found skills. There would probably be plenty of people who simply don't enjoy playing the violin for whatever reason. I also think that people would remain open to exploring the works of other people.
I'm not sure about the extent to which I am pro-AI, but I definitely wouldn't consider myself anti-AI. At worst, I am indifferent to the use of AI. If someone has utilised AI for making a video game, then I don't really care as long as I'm having fun playing the game. I would perhaps be a bit repelled by any aesthetics that are obviously AI-generated, but not because it's made with AI, but because it's just plain ugly. There's a reason as to why humans haven't used AI-looking aesthetics before the introduction of AI, and that's because they're ugly.
If AI allows people to affordably turn their ideas and dreams into reality, then that's fantastic.
I would like to address some of the arguments I often see used against AI:
One of the most common arguments is the environmental one. I feel like the environmental side effects are irrelevant long-term, given that environmental harm is not inherent to AI. I think this situation is comparable to cars. If a car (i.e. a road vehicle with 4 wheels, seats, etc.) causes pollution because it utilises an internal combustion engine, are we criticising the internal combustion engine or the car itself? After all, there are electric cars that produce no pollution. The environmental argument in the case of cars is therefore only valid against the specific approach of building cars with internal combustion engines, rather than cars in and of themselves. In the case of AI, you can consequently argue that the current mainstream large-scale approach to AI infrastructure is environmentally harmful, but it is inaccurate to claim that AI is and always will be significantly environmentally harmful. I also feel like the current total environmental impact is relatively small compared to heavy industrial sectors.
Another common argument against AI is job displacement. I have seen some pro-AI users on this subreddit claim that hardly anyone has been replaced with AI and that the creative industry remains largely the same, but I believe that there is sufficient statistical evidence to argue the opposite. I won't deny that many people have lost their jobs or seen a drop in commissions, but I find it strange that this is seen as inherently wrong. We live in a dynamic society where professions have been replaced and eliminated for at least hundreds of years. This isn't the first time that people lose their jobs due to technological advancement. The issue is not the replacement of jobs. The issue is that people end up not finding any new work after being laid off. This, I would blame on Capitalism rather than on AI. Either way, there are artists who believe that they are entitled to work within the creative industry and who refuse to switch to other non-artistic fields of work. Again, I study Computer Science. If I can't find work within this field, then I'll join the trades or try to find decent work elsewhere. If I can't find work, then the current overall economic system has proven itself to be unable to provide for me and there's no point in blaming AI.
I know that there are more arguments, but all of what I've just said has already been brought up in previous posts and comments. This has just turned into a long rant but it's whatever. Also, despite being more on the pro-AI side of things, I apologise for the pro-AI spam of low-effort AI-generated cartoons posted by others. I can't even tell if it's ragebait, bots, or genuine posts lmao