I say this in a parallel comment but there’s both commercial art and creative art and they’re separate things. Commercial art will be significantly affected by AI but creative art won’t be, or AI will be used as just another tool in the toolbox for creative artists.

Absolutely. I also think there's a big sleeper group (the biggest) with people who make generic art but for themselves and only show it to their friends and family, or doesn't show it at all. I'm one of those. I make it for myself and this doesn't deter me the slightest.

However, if you're only in it for the money I think you're in for a rough time.

>I say this in a parallel comment but there’s both commercial art and creative art and they’re separate things.

They aren't separate things. Plenty of artists - even in purely commercial fields - are creative and passionate about their work.

This bias is unfortunate and nearly omnipresent on Hacker News. It's assumed that to be a "true" artist, one must be willing to suffer, and any artist who makes any money must only be in it for the money. Meanwhile a lot of people here wouldn't so much as get out of bed for a salary with less than six figures, catered lunches, a gym membership, unlimited PTO and a pony, and yet they still consider themselves "knowledge workers" for whom only the purity of information and craftsmanship of code are priorities. But everyone else has be a slave to supply and demand and if that means they can't make a living, tough shit.

Like as not, we live in a capitalist society and passion and talent are commodities like everything else. Good art takes time to learn, time to maintain, time to execute, materials, licenses, etc - all of which cost money. Artists need to eat, they need a roof over their heads, they need to pay taxes. That money can either be made doing what one is passionate about, which means being tainted by capitalism, or doing something else. In which case the art suffers.