All these AI discussions seem to lack the nuance that the real utility of these tools will come in the finer points.
GPT? Sure, you can write a book with it, but in writing its use as a tool by a real human is perhaps best when it is providing a jumpstart to creativity. If I'm writing a script I might have a chatbot give me a rough outline which will usually be complete garbage that I throw away 90% of but it got me over the decision paralysis of getting started.
Image generation? Sure, you can create varying degrees of body horror wrong-hand imagery and ugly-as-sin event flyers. But it's also indispensable for, as an example, object deletion and cleanup workflows within Photoshop. Or intelligently letting me change the paint color of a car while preserving the reflection's tones and realistic shadows.
Video generation? Sure, you can make ugly nonsensical slop but I imagine it will be hugely useful for AI driven rotoscoping, quickly creating placeholder or background resources.
Of course, the ethics of how this training data was all gained creates an entirely different aspect of discussion. Supposedly Adobe's image generation, by far some of the worst on the market, is so bad because it is ONLY trained on imagery that they already have reproduction and usage rights to. Which tracks, because it does an admirable job of erasing an ugly building and revealing trees and a field behind it, but anything that results in it having to generate stuff more complex than the landscape photography that makes up the glut of its training data has... hilarious results.