I am not worried. (Also, I am not a professional photographer, but AI affects my profession too.) Roughly, AI processing seems to be "mimicking the most common processing choices, as indicated by observing how a large number of people handle a situation"; a glorified "average/typical choice".
- Why should anyone expect to be paid good money to reproduce "average" or "typical" processing choices?
- Why should one consider mere competent execution of routine actions as equivalent to talented, artistic decision making?
It sounds a bit like "pattern exposure metering": a sensible time saving way for anyone from beginner to professional to handle routine situations without complications like making multiple spot metering measurements, with the professional's craft involving knowing when and how to turn off the automation and make less routine, more skilled artistic decisions.