I think you are saying people whose jobs AI can do are the silent film actors... Who are the "talkie" actors in this analogy; the people whose jobs AI won't take over?
Teamsters were horse carriage drivers and then drove trucks. The horse driver job was "destroyed by technology"? Or was it changed?
Jobs are not static entities to be defended or lost. They are dynamic opportunities shaped by technology.
Every technology creates different opportunities.
No one cries for silent movie era job losses or horse driver jobs. If AI transforms jobs that's what technology has always done.
How it will actually play out is unknown and unknowable. That its just negative is sheer science fiction.
I don't think that's a fair claim to make, either. AI music, AI art and even AI television is all fairly proliferate right now: https://www.polygon.com/23767640/ai-mcu-secret-invasion-open...
We're not seeing a radical reconsideration of how art is made, nor a rising watermark in content quality. The chart-topping AI songs are transient and forgettable, the finest AI artwork is low-cost and generally effortless. AI television and video content is mostly just a self-loathing piss-take, the stuff that takes itself seriously ends up embarrassing itself. The only people using this tech unironically is the White House, at this point.
And that is rare. Novel changes produce nearly impossible to predict reactions because they are unprecedented.
The future is unknown and unknowable. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you a $30k upgrade on a self driving car.
It's almost like art has inherent social qualities that get watered-down when you reduce the human effort that goes into it. You can't innovate your way out of that.