Oh yes I definitely do. A photograph regardless of the amount of processing, sharpening, dehaze, denoise etc is still the work of a cognizant human being because the photographer has control of the changes and thus totally owns the final result. The final result whether deemed to be either good or bad is a result of the photographer's artistic talent and their vision. For me a AI generated image demonstrates neither talent or vision and is worthless. What would you rather have, an AI generated Monet or a honest to goodness Monet?

One was created and hand drawn onto some medium by a talented human, the other was never seen by a human eye until it was belched completed out of a computer program.

One was created line by line with purpose and intent, using materials, textures, colors, tones and an understanding of composition. The other was cobbled together by scraping the Internet for work by artists and then analyzing millions of images to mimic them.

Machine learning cannot create anything new, only approximate an execution of what has already been done.

Having an idea for an image and not being able to execute it but only tell someone or something else to do it, is the other side of that coin. If you can type a great description, you may want to call yourself an author, and then hire an illustrator.

One was created and hand drawn onto some medium by a talented human, the other was never seen by a human eye until it was belched completed out of a computer program.

One was created line by line with purpose and intent, using materials, textures, colors, tones and an understanding of composition. The other was cobbled together by scraping the Internet for work by artists and then analyzing millions of images to mimic them.

Machine learning cannot create anything new, only approximate an execution of what has already been done.

Having an idea for an image and not being able to execute it but only tell someone or something else to do it, is the other side of that coin. If you can type a great description, you may want to call yourself an author, and then hire an illustrator.

One was created and hand drawn onto some medium by a talented human, the other was never seen by a human eye until it was belched completed out of a computer program.

One was created line by line with purpose and intent, using materials, textures, colors, tones and an understanding of composition. The other was cobbled together by scraping the Internet for work by artists and then analyzing millions of images to mimic them.

Machine learning cannot create anything new, only approximate an execution of what has already been done.

Having an idea for an image and not being able to execute it but only tell someone or something else to do it, is the other side of that coin. If you can type a great description, you may want to call yourself an author, and then hire an illustrator.

There can be no argument that commercial advertising will use the cheapest, fastest method to achieve its goal, even if that means eliminating people (real people) entirely.

I have my doubts about movies, though, since using AI animation for an entire documentary, dramatic, or comedic movie without any real people might not sell too well. Even the Marvel Universe still requires some real people to blend into the explosions and come out the other side. There is already very little reason to have actual people in this type of movie, but I can't see humans being completely replaced any time soon.

I think there will still be a place for wedding, portrait, and senior photography, documenting news, sending images from space, broadcasting and recording important events, speeches and what have you, personal memorabilia and many other uses that will always require a device to record an actual event.

If you are in certain lines of work, you may have to worry about your job in the future, but cameras in general are going to be around for a long, long time. You'll still want that picture of you at the Grand Canyon.