>>309796
>>309797
Think of how, up until mass media and telecom was invented (printing press, camera, telegraph, microphone, radio, TV, etc.) the vast majority of artists spent their time performing a repertoire composed by someone else or cranking out straightforward impressions of some real world thing (portrait, transcript, etc.)
When these technologies hit, 99% of the artists in relevant fields (scribes, illustrators, musicians, actors, etc.) were out of a job almost overnight. But did the entire profession vanish? No.
Likewise, a copy of a book hand illuminated by a scribe, a song played by a live band, or a play staged by live actors, even if amateurish compared to elite performers who make recordings today certainly tends to have individual flair that a PDF, MP3, or MP4 doesn't. But nowhere near enough most of us will go through the expense of getting the old fashioned version, certainly not every single time.
AI will be the same. People will do what humans need or want to, machines will do what humans don't.
Aside from that production angle, AI, much like computer games compared to "passive" media, will restore some measure of the customized nature of "traditional" art. Even if a great artist makes an fine performance for mass reproduction, it is static, unlike a live or bespoke performer's ability collaborate with the audience in adapting a more personal performance. AI embedded inside art will permit it to both react to the audience according to the artist's intent, and for the audience to adjust it to their taste.