It strikes me that there is a lot of confusion about how A.I. photography (or photographic mimicry, perhaps?) will impact the world of photography overall. While there have been some very good thoughts presented in this thread (and a lot of posts displaying the ignorance of the writer in terms of what really constitutes A.I. in the sense the OP brought up), I have realized that the term “photographer”, as in “I am a photographer” is too broad - it begs the question, “what kind of photographer? Event/wedding? Corporate? Fine Art? Sports? Nature? You get the idea.

So, indulge me as I opine on how A.I. may impact these various sub-disiplines:

Event/Wedding - I see no way artificially produced images will suffice in this realm. After all, people want to see their kids or loved ones or whatever dancing at the wedding or doing the barrel race at the rodeo or performing on a balance beam at a gymnastics meet. Made-up people doing those very tings have no value, other than perhaps to show the young gymnast a good form to use and the like. But as @rehess stated above, "recording what actually is” is the necessary element here.

Corporate - this arena may well be hit pretty hard. Of course, executive portraiture will not be impacted (again, I am not speaking of the post process “A.I.” work that Photoshop or Luminar et al can do). However, there may no longer be a need for a real person controlling a camera to get that “money shot” of the moon rising over the new factory with smoke pouring out of the chimneys illuminated by the glow of sodium vapor lights or whatever.

Fine Art - As @Horseart pointed out above, it might be the case that not as much fine art photos will be sold. However, I have always considered photography to be an art and a craft…the ‘art’ part is having a vision in your mind’s eye that you want to share with others; the ‘craft’ part is knowing the gear and the concepts that enable you to put that image in front of other people. So while A.I. generated works may well be created whole cloth out of nothing, I daresay the last image in @jlg1000’s latest post (the flaming eyeball thing) was not created from the “mind” of the computer - rather, he (she?) effectively told the computer what to generate, having had a basic concept in mind. Feel free to disabuse me of that notion, @jlg, but I tend to doubt the machine ‘woke up’ one morning and generated that image.
So, in the end, a fine art photographer might consider this A.I. stuff to be just a really more advanced camera of a sort, where, instead of having to use The Photographer’s Ephemeris to figure out where to stand to get the rising moon between two mountain peaks (see attached) one would be able to tell the machine “I want a moonrise at 98% full appearing over that peak” or whatever.

Sports - It seems to me that capturing the actual catch/kick/block/whatever of the instant is the thing in demand, not a contrived “make a photo with that sportsball guy doing that thing” image. So, like Event/wedding shooting, A.I. generated images will have little impact - other than making deepfake lies (“make an image with Mike Tyson beating Lia Thomas in a swimming race”…)

Nature - now IMHO this one gets a little trickier. There is certainly an expectation of a photograph of a band of gorillas in the wild to be ‘real’, but since humans (or at least, the vast majority of humans) cannot tell one silverback gorilla from another, unlike a wedding photo, it is very hard to see that a given image is faked. How soon will we see versions of the (in)famous “macacque self portrait” thanks to faked imagery? And, for that matter, who will care? That said, I recall there having been quite the uproar years ago when a NatGeo shooter admitted that a shot of herd of zebra where one was looking back at the photographer was photoshopped to put in that zebra. So this may become a grey area…nature shooters might be in trouble.

Anyway, them’s my 2¢

all of a sudden Lightroom will not import photos from my Mac desktop or attached thumb drives. I've contacted Adobe twice to fix the problem and they have accessed my Mac without any solution. Last week all worked fine, then all of a sudden this week, LR will not import, but just sits there saying it is importing, but nothing happens.

The first call with Adobe lasted several hours and they thought they fixed the problem by changing a bunch of parameters on my Mac. Believing that the problem was corrected, we ended the call. After rebooting the system, the problem still remains.

The second call with Adobe also lasted several hours with their final solution of going back to an older version of LR. Again, believing that the problem was corrected, we ended the call. Again, after rebooting the system, the problem still remains. I am going to contact Adobe support again today and ask for someone who knows what they are doing instead of the guessing of prior agents.

I am completely frustrated at this point, and am now asking for help from UHH. Has anyone had this situation with LR, and, if so, what was the solution?