I think that that the sorts of AI that smaller companies make will be more likely to create jobs as opposed to getting rid of them since they are more likely to be integrated with physical products.
It's complicated obviously, but I think "will create jobs" just leaves a lot of subtlety out of it, so I've never believed it when representatives say it and I wouldn't say it myself writing to them, but a small letter to a representative always will lack that fidelity.
I don't think anyone can guarantee that there won't be job loss with AI, so it's possible we could have a net negative (in total jobs, quality of jobs, or any dimension).
What we do see is companies shedding jobs on a (what seems like perpetual) edge of a recession/depression, so it might be worth regulating in the short term.
Writing has always been a low paid shrinking job well before AI. Besides a tiny group of writers at the big firms. I took a journalism course for fun at UofT in my spare time and the professors had nothing but horror stories for trying to make a job out of writing (ie getting a NYT bestseller and getting $1 cheques in the mail). They basically told the students to only do it as a hobby unless you have some engaged niche audience. Which is more about the writer being interesting rather than the generic writing process.
While AI isn't going to put anyone out of a job immediately (like automation didn't), there are legitimate risks already in that regard -- in both fiction and nonfiction sites, folk are experimenting with having AI basically write stories/pieces for them -- and the results are often good enough to have potentially put someone out of the job of writing a piece in the first place.