Yes, and: as the space evolves, human artists will figure out what AI art is bad at doing and find new niches.
And then software will "learn," and the arms race will continue.
And then software will "learn," and the arms race will continue.
That being said, I'm quite enjoying generating pixel art to stand in for my programmer art before I commission artists.
Newer art programs like CSP already have a lot of tools Photoshop didn't, even if it's just 3D models for poses.
Earlier today I saw a video (sorry, lost the link) of an AI editing program (still a prototype). It generates layers of a scene in place, say sky, mountains, rivers, foreground, etc. each of which would be individually manipulated. Next the program seamlessly blends the layers. The host then continued to add objects/subjects and through "in-painting" made all of it blend into a single coherent scene.
This kind of capability is close to being released. This year.
This is literally how you do prompts to AI programs.
How will the software learn? By having their work feed into the algo. The creative space is massive and fashions and currents change. In order for the algo to catch up it would need a massive dataset and by the time this is satisfied the art would have moved on to something else..
This tool will still remain and will most likely be used by artists too, though just as a tool in the toolbox, not as a complete process. Fotography didn’t destroy painting, it changed it in unforseen ways.