So it's either a) I am too technically dumb to understand the implications of AI or 2) AI still needs human input to make it work or 3) we are already using too many surveillance techniques even before the AI or 4) any of the above.
Still, sure AI is super impactful, and yes, just like robotics before it, it will end up replacing many jobs. But again, just that funny photo of math teachers in the mid-70s protesting against the use of calculators, AI is here to stay.
Nikon knows it. But also use it to its advantage stressing "don't give up on the real world" with a series of images to well-done, they could have been generated by AI - but actually they weren't. A lot time ago I saw a beautiful photo taken by the legendary Steve McCurry, as I showed it to an art director at the ad agency I was working in at the time, he was unfazed and said "I can do that in photoshop". I tried to make him understand that there was no photoshop involved. He was adamant.
But photoshop or no photoshop, McCurry loses none of his magic. And - I truly still think - that we still need human creativity to get AI to do what we want. Only faster and in a less cumbersome way.
And clients will always reject our options, so it's not like anything will change on the ground.