Consider what happened to painters after the invention of photography (~1830s). At first the technology was very limited and no threat at all to portrait and landscape painters.

By the 1860s artists were feeling the heat and responded by inventing all the "isms" - starting with impressionism. That's kept them employed so far, but who knows whether they'll be able to co-exist with whatever diffusion models become in 30 years.

But the 18th century artist who did portraits and wedding paintings is the today’s (wedding) photographer.

Does it take less money to commission a single wedding photo rather than a wedding painting? Yes. But many more people commission them and usually in tens to hundreds, together with videos, etc.

An 18th century wedding painter wasn’t in the business of paintings, but in the business of capturing memories and we do that today on much larger scale, more often and in a lot of different ways.

I’d also argue more landscape painters exist today than ever.

I can't take these kind of comments serious at all. You're totally off topic and offer a platitude comparing apples to oranges.