To be honest, this is a rabbit hole worth going down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseless_carriage
And from that page is this, and and this cracked a smile on my face.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsey_Horseless
Look at the 1908 Model T.
https://corporate.ford.com/articles/history/the-model-t.html
And then compare that with the Curricle, say:
Still not an apt analogy. Innovation is quite different to overt copying.
A lot of good arguments exist with bad analogies.
But on the broader argument, saying people just don't like it because it puts them out of jobs also seems to miss the point.
Disruptive technologies of the kind that "put people put out of jobs" usually just replace labour, ie. mechanised looms, calculators and computers, rather than replacing the result of one's labour. Often this is a distinction without any meaningful difference, but when we're talking about art and creative work products I think it's significant.
And Frankly, the best art has always been created by people who couldn't afford to do it full time. Art will not suffer.
That's quite the claim.
I'm not sure there's a consistent correlation between "best art" and ability to do it full-time, but there certainly is a long tradition of artists and apprentices who did indeed make art their entire lives.
People already buy cheap/shitty art to hang on the walls from Wal-Mart, Target, etc. Artists already lost that market 5 maybe 6 decades ago.