I think it is also worth considering that “artist” is very broad.
Digital artists (and potentially songwriters?) seem very vulnerable, but I expect that my role as a programmer/CS researcher will be 100% automated before I can hire a robot to be even a mediocre photographer. Photorealistic image generation probably reduces the demand for some kinds of photography (stock photography?), but not the need to capture real events like weddings. Painters*, sculptors, and other physical-medium artists seem even less exposed. Even if a robot could paint something nice, I suspect that people buying paintings will prefer that they were made by a human (I would).
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of AI-vulnerability by type of artist, as well as how much society cares about preserving each form of art as something that humans should do.
* Additionally, I wouldn’t be surprised if “person who physically paints” is the first kind of artist people think of when they hear the word “artist.”
ldhough
Are there some people who do this for a hobby?
I was first exposed to it (flintknapping, but you can also make stone tools by grinding stone) by a granduncle when I was very young (5), and did it as a hobby for the last ~1.5 years of my undergraduate degree while I was living with my parents. I don’t do it anymore because I live in an apartment and don’t have easy access to a space where I could do it. It takes a lot of outside area because you produce a lot of sharp stone flakes and silica dust which you don’t want in an area that is not well-ventilated.You probably need the right kind of stone for that. How much time does it take for a relative beginner to produce one stone tool?
It doesn’t work with any rock. You need materials that produce conchoidal fractures. The most typical ones to work with are flint, chert, obsidian, and dacite. I’m not a geologist, but what is referred to as “dacite” in the flintknapping community doesn’t look a lot like what I see in the dacite Wikipedia article or Google Images (has a lot of inclusions, doesn’t look like it would fracture the right way). If you look up “flintknapping dacite” you’ll see it as a slightly glossy dark grey rock. More exotic materials are fossilized coral (“agatized coral”) and quartz crystals (https://www.zmescience.com/science/archaeology/rock-crystal-dagger/). Non-natural materials can be used as well. Some people knap with non-natural glass and I think porcelain.
There are several websites that sell the rocks you need for very cheap if you don’t live in an area where you can find them. They also sell traditional tools. The typical tools are other rocks (different kind) and antler. Sometimes copper is used, and I think it was used historically during the chalcolithic.
As to the difficulty of knapping, it depends heavily on the material. Obsidian (and by extension, probably manufactured glass as well) is by far the easiest of the materials I listed, followed by dacite. With the low level of skill I reached, I was only ever able to make decent looking tools out of obsidian and dacite. You need to strike the rocks very precisely to knap well, but for flint and chert you need to hit them a lot harder, which makes precise hits tougher IMO.
You can knap decent looking tools out of obsidian with not too much practice, and it is an extremely fun hobby that I would recommend quite highly. I was able to make do with YouTube tutorials and produced rough-looking blades with less than a week of practice (probably <10 hours). You’ll break a LOT of blades while learning though, which really sucks if they were looking nice up to that point. You’ll also cut yourself, especially if you don’t wear gloves. The cuts are generally very clean and heal nicely, especially with obsidian. I wear glasses for my vision, but I would probably wear protective glasses otherwise. Apparently Ishi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishi) had a technique for dislodging shards of the material from his eyes (https://archive.org/details/yahiarcherysaxton00poperich/page/116/mode/2up?q=eye).
I think it is less surprising for current early university students (esp. outside top students/schools) because they probably weren’t feeding the AI of three years ago (GPT4) tasks that far beyond its capabilities. High-school-level homework, short essays, etc.
From their perspective it might be: “AI did a good job on my homework on 2023, it still does a good job on my homework in 2026.” They never tried the college-level homework problems in 2023, let alone were trying to use it for software engineering, real research tasks, etc.