Well here's another thing, replacing horse carriages with cars was a major boon for civilization that sped up industrialization, led to more jobs (car builders, mechanics, drivers, gas station attendants, road builders, traffic lights and sign manufacturers), enabled shipping of goods cross country, increase tourism, and allow more flexibility in work and living area. It was worth the trade off. And cars were simpler back in the day whereas now they're all computerized. Cars were also expensive enough that they took a while to spread to the public.

We know why rote labor is being automated. Not just to squeeze as much money out as possible but to reduce failures and liability and increase productivity. If a factory pumps out more medicine to save more lives who can judge maybe automation was worth the tradeoff.

But art? Is this something civilization needed to try automating? It's not going to create more jobs than it replaces. It's not going to advance society to the next industrial level. It's not filling a demand because we're already flooded with more media than we could ever consume.

Stability is important for society and tossing golden apples around "because" and telling people to "adapt" to senseless chaos is awful. People will get squeezed out and career change is a bigger deal than adapting from paper to digital.

They're not guaranteed jobs so why make it harder to get them? So failed artists can compete for jobs with the factory, fast food and coal workers whose time is written on the wall?