I read something that the advent of photography was considered by many to be the the death of art, but it simply led to evolution of other forms of painting that photography at the time couldn't mimic. I feel like AI is the same, it's just technology, it in itself is neither evil/good, it just is. It still takes more raw skill as an individual to paint a hyper-realistic scene vs. snapshotting a picture or having a computer generate an image from stolen work. No matter how good it becomes it can't take away your raw skill as an individual who has practiced for years to perfect your art.
Even so, like
>>9624 said, there is always someone better anyways. AI can be a useful tool to help improve your own art and it'll be interesting to see how it'll be used in time. I can't deny that I've come to like a lot of AI-generated images. If you're not an industry artist, a soulless job in it's own right, and make money via the indie circuit of festivals, cons, running your own online business or whatever else, you'll be fine. I'd rather it be a side hustle vs. a career anyways. Freelance gigs are boring half the time, maybe there will be a boom of people wanting authentic artwork by artists that can be patented as real. You never know.