[spankibalt]

> Im curious who would buy software that lack of features?

I will only use software that lacks AI for the profoundly simple reason that I don't need such "features". Non-artists on the other hand need AI for they're not competent (enough). At what stage of the process is irrelevant.

And competency in matters of sentient cultural expression manifest, the only one possible (as opposed to a mere simulacrum), is what defines an artist, after all; non-competency obviously doesn't.

[t0bia_s]

I know many artists that are not thirsty for competition. Actually I don't know any passionate artist who would create with competition in mind. It might be some weird "influencer" trend of thinking you talking about. If that is your definition of "artists" than you are talking about content creators.

[spankibalt]

> I know many artists that are not thirsty for competition.

Good for you.

> Actually I don't know any passionate artist who would create with competition in mind.

I on the other hand know many; the demosceners I grew up with, just to give one example. Competition there is part of these subcultures' very own aesthetics, i. e. (unwritten) rules.

> If that is your definition of "artists" than you are talking about content creators.

Albeit I have an aversion for the slopword "content" and avoid it to describe any artist's output, artists are, as creators (of "content" of an artistic nature) per se, i. e. per definition, "content creators". You also erected a strawman, for I only adressed competency as an attribute of definition... and not competition. And albeit the latter might help make anyone more competent as an artist, or empower an artist in becoming one in the first place, the concept doesn't define the artist as one on its own, in itself.

And with that I think we have exhausted our exchange at this point as a) I have answered your question about AI features in art packages, and b) you already have trouble understanding even the most basic of concepts in art creation, let alone art theory.