If ai exacerbates culture issues and management incompetence then that is an inherent downside of ai.
There is a bunch of programmers who like ai, but as the article shows, programmers are not the only people subjected to ai in the workplace. If you're an artist, you've taken a job that has crap pay and stability for the amount of training you put in, and the only reason you do it is because you like the actual content of the job (physically making art). There is obviously no upside to ai for those people, and this focus on the managers' or developers' perspective is myopic.
It might seem hard to believe but there are a bunch of artists who also like AI. People whose artistic practice predates AI. The definition of "artist" is a quagmire which I won't get into but I am not stretching the definition here in any way.
It's an interesting point that passion-jobs that creatives take on (including game dev) tend to get paid less, and where the thrilling component is disrupted there could be less incentive to bother entering the field.
I think for the most part creatives will still line up for these gigs, because they care about contributing to the end products, not the amount of time they spend using Blender.
You are again just thinking from the perspective of a manager: Yes, if these ai jobs need to be filled, artists will be the people filling them. But from the artists perspective there are fewer jobs, and the jobs that do remain are less fulfilling. So: from the perspective of a large part of the workforce it is completely true and rational to say that ai at their job has mostly downsides.
> from the artists perspective there are fewer jobs, and the jobs that do remain are less fulfilling.
Re-read what I wrote. You repeated what I said.
> So: from the perspective of a large part of the workforce it is completely true and rational to say that ai at their job has mostly downsides.
For them, maybe.