Inherently, humans (myself included) are lazy and easily bored. So, if they can delegate non-interesting, tedious tasks to others without any negative consequences while still achieving the task’s acceptance criteria, they will do so. Until few years ago, only simplistic tasks (tasks that can be broken into flowcharts) could be automated… and then GenAI started to get good.
Those who do NOT like painting will create images with GenAI. Someone who loves coding, if they are pressed for time, or, asked to handle tedious unit tests - might delegate coding tasks to GenAI. I believe that, in an ideal state of abundance and a lack of potential negative consequences, a person will always opt to do the tasks they love instead of delegating it to GenAI. At most, that person will use GenAI to verify the quality of their work, and that’s with a big “IF GenAI can even do that” - as while GenAI is “good”, it is not “great” yet.
I do not view the persons that opt to delegate such tasks to GenAI as morally / creatively bankrupt. Those persons are either simply pressed for time, or find that the tasks that they delegate to GenAI, boring. Similar to how heat rises, this too is also simply the path of least resistance, and dare I say - is the sensible state of things.
As such, as an expert - as a professional, it is our responsibility and our role to show that our work quality is still far better than GenAI’s. We may even use it to improve our work, but the responsibility of the work still must be ours.
The ideal state is that we can leave all boring work to others (AI), while we just enjoy our life. Humanity’s end state should not be the fear of running out of labor. Alas, our world is not ideal, and greed is limitless. Maybe Adam’s punishment is still upon us.