[megabytemike]

I don't think the concern is out of graphic designers, but the diminishing of humans from the creative process. Art is meant to be expressive of human experience. It's a translation of feeling and ideas (intangible) into a medium (tangible). One could argue AI still achieves this to a degree, and there ARE some really good AI generated artwork out there that does achieve this well but most of it isn't commercial art.

I think the actual concern people have with AI generated art is that the bar for entry has been lowered (expected) but we're ignoring the attention to detail or verifying/confirming the output. Too much trust is being put into AI generated output and we rush to publish stuff that doesn't convey the original idea. With it being commercially driven art, the incentives aren't there to properly review when you are emphasizing quantity over quality.

Take the swan and army boat in Los Angeles lake example. Before fully AI generated art existed, a human would have looked and reviewed that and ask the artist, "why the hell is there a swan there?" There could be a dialogue to defend or change that.

Even without AI, this problem still would have existed if your goal is producing as much distinct art at scale with less humans in the loop. Things are bound to slip through but it only winds up being smaller issues that might not impact expression of idea. Adding fully generated AI art has amplified this problem to a point where we don't have time to review at all.

[Yeul]

The Hollywood movie industry has always been about business not art.