Yes, I strongly agree with these points, but particularly the second half. "Real art" is not at all under threat by AI, which has effectively no ability to even touch, let alone dilute the supposed magnitude and breadth of the human spirit in expression. The existence/proliferation of AI is not going to infringe upon the abilities or opportunities of a bus driver who comes home every day after work to work covertly on an entire house full of sprawling, elaborate tinfoil miniatures which aren't discovered until after his death.

The inconvenient reality of most "creative" work that AI has excelled at supplanting is that it already is, and has been, exactly what people accuse AI to be doing to the form: pure commercial churn, meant solely to occupy temporary space, occasionally brilliant, mostly by accident, but nearly always produced lazily, insincerely, and without pride by people who are not paid enough to care and would rather be working on anything else. AI accelerates human mediocrity not because it is inherently mediocre by nature but because most people, and the things they produce, are. And I very squarely place the bulk of all my own creative efforts and accomplishments within that category too.

I think "AI is replacing art" is a category error. If I read a book or look at a piece of art or listen to music, the whole point is to receive the thoughts, feelings, and lived experience of a human being.

But yes, AI is supplanting the mundane "art" that artists use as potboiler work, and that is the economic threat. The bitter horrible irony of art as a career is that the best art is often the hardest to sell, and it also takes the most time and energy to make. It's insanely hard to make a living doing just "pure art."