I question the proposition that any creative work is done "better" without humans being involved. Cheaper, faster? Yeah, and that is why executives are all for it. But it's not better. Expression and communication are important aspects of art. To substitute that with thoughtless automated content slop is no improvement.

It's not like cheap t-shirts which, as long as you are clothed, the aesthetics and craftsmanship is a secondary consideration. The aesthetics and craftsmanship of media are everything in it.

We can't forget that even the original Luddites only wanted to protect their livelihoods and working conditions, and though they were defeated, those fights didn't end with them. Because it isn't about hating technology. It's about the right for a decent life. Unfortunately the benefits of automation are inequitably distributed. Executive profits soar, but the people which used to be employed in those roles struggle.

It isn't even Luddism from artists to demand approval and compensation when it comes to having their work and likeness used to train AIs. These AIs we see today relied on massive disregard towards smaller creators' intellectual rights to get off the ground. It's telling and revolting how considerations towards intellectual property only seem to matter when the affected parties are massive media companies.