"You can make a movie on your phone, create a song, edit images."
These are 2010-era tools. We're modernizing.
You wouldn't ask musicians today to stick to only pre-synthesizer, pre-DAW era tools to make their music. You wouldn't ask illustrators to ditch their tablets force them to mix their own cerulean unless that's what they wanted to do.
The tools that are coming are going to be fantastic and they're going to enable artists to do wild new things. That isn't subtractive, it's additive. There's more space to explore.
New tools don't even prevent folks from making music and media the old fashioned way: there are still people shooting on film to this day. And there's a vibrant community that embraces anachronistic tools to make new art.
I'm looking forward to a world where teenagers cut their teeth on making their own Marvel movies instead of just watching them. We'll have so many young Scorseses before they even graduate.
Current generative AI isn't additive. It's generative. That's about half of the problem. DAWs don't revert your changes back to means, but genAI always do, being a statistical model. The roughly other half is that the output is inexplicably bad, not always noticeable to everyone but often obvious to artists and connoisseurs, so connoisseurs can't promote themselves into artists by use of AI.
The almost violent anti-AI sentiment seen among art cohort is sometimes hard to understand to subgroups of tech literates without enough training epochs in human generative image data(especially the kind prevalent on the Internet), and I would understand that without grasp of rather subjective quality issues it could indeed look like an artificially incited luddite conspiracy.
Once someone makes an AI that would be additive and outputs entertainment worthy, then the "luddites" will change, they must. Until then, it's just a technically remarkable white noise generator.
A.I. art is for the lazy.