The 'best' ai art generally still has an unnatural sort of look to it. But the concern about human artist replacement is/should be about its future potential. Either way, I don't see how that would be anything but a good thing. It was already a common enough idea that rendering is a tedious process, so automation of that 'lower level' would allow artists to make more in less time. Imagine if it were possible for a single artist to make a hundred page comic in a few weeks or an animated show in a month. If ai art is derivative and uncreative (inferior), which is a common criticism, then there's no need to police it so aggressively outside of spam on art platforms; let the art be evaluated on its own merit. To go back to the idea of a piece of media being created much more quickly, this same line of reasoning should apply to the writing of a show, say. An 'original' artist would have to perform the meaningful work in order for something to not suck. And in the case that ai movies are just as good or vastly superior to any human creation, then our 'creativity' losing to mimesis means that there was nothing valuable about that trait in the first place. You can't have it both ways. Either human 'creativity' has no mystical component of originality, or ai will only ever be useful for automating lower level work (and not replace 'creative' artists).