No, absolutely not. As expected, you are just bulshitting me.

Just to be thorough, this is how:

• "Just evolve with the tech and use AI too" is a clueless response considering that artistic industries are already highly saturated. There won't even be enough positions for all the AI artists, which they will inevitably find out. It's also weirdly elitist, thinking of AI art as superior to any other form, the only one worthy still dedicating yourself too, an attitude that is already conceited when it happens between traditional and digital artists.

• "It's just like the industrial revolution" not only is not a solution, rather it is a reference to time in history that, though romanticized, was very troubled. As it was, going from working artisanal crafts to getting their arms chewed by machinery didn't turn out great for the early industrial workers, and it might not ever have if not for people fighting for their rights. Worse than that, back then industries eventually freed people from working on fields to working on offices. Now AI can take them out of the offices, but to where? No, they won't all be AI engineers. How does that benefit the artist that is "freed" into having to work in a sweatshop?

• Another common response that is present in neither your comments nor the article is "Universal Basic Income will solve this" and even if I try to be fully open to the possibility, I have to point out that AI is here today, but UBI is only tested every couple years, people tell how great it is and then we don't hear anything about widespread implementation. This likely won't happen without fierce popular pressure.

So, the question of the artists' material conditions is not even remotely addressed.