I have a different explanation than a lot of commenters here.

If you're reading traditionally published books, the publishers select novels based on whether they think they will do well with a certain demographic. So they will push female protags in genres/books that they think will do well with women, and push male protags in genres/books that they think will do well with men.

You might just be finding that it's very difficult to find a trad publisher who decided to publish a female protag in a genre you enjoy.

As an example in an adjacent field, 99.999% of shounen anime (Pokemon, Yugi-oh, One Piece) have a male protag despite cross-gender appeal.

This is amazing. Love how supportive the Aldi's is.

You are getting downvoted but I agree. It takes different skills to understand "I want this" and then have an AI generate it, vs seeing what an AI generates and thinking "I want this"

Art directors will be safe. Everybody else - it will be tough for them to survive.

Right now storytelling and themes will still be safe. The AI will have some difficulty giving work real meaning, and I'm not saying that because I am some kind of human elitist - I still believe AI will wipe out most of the art industry. But how do you "train" an AI to write a narrative handling how to deal with a romantic comedy where each character handles love in a different way, for example, with consistent characterizations and character growth over many many chapters, and resolving in a chaotic final scene where everyone's arcs resolve at once? Certainly it might be possible but it is not a trivial problem the way generating "Elon Musk as an Astronaut" already is, or using AI Dungeon to roleplay as a wizard or write a beautiful description of a house.

As above however, art that exists purely to be descriptive or entertain will not be safe at all however. An already difficult profession to break into will be made tougher still to make a living from.

People are pretentious, I agree. Calling themselves directors might be valid, but artists? No way.

Think of that this way.

In a movie, a director asks actors and camera people to move around in a way that captures the vision he is in his mind.

When someone commissions artwork, they are doing the same thing as a director - they want a certain character a certain way in a certain style.

So rather than hire an artist, you would hire and manipulate an AI. For an artist to compete, they would need to be able to better capture a person's vision than a computer and also do so at a rate that's economical, which as tech progresses will be difficult. Already, art that is purely descriptive (I want you to paint me a girl with a sword) is essentially obsolete for human artists to compete with.

My perspective is that there's nothing to be afraid of esp. if people use AI to create scenes or characters they have already visualized in their minds. When we think of it like this, it's just another awesome tool for expression, and people who use AI are essentially acting like movie directors.

However, my worry is that instead, people will just generate lots of art with no clear idea of what they want beforehand and just pick what looks cool out of what the AI generates. There's a subtle difference because people who do that are relying on the AI to be creative, and much like GPS has caused people's navigational skills to deteriorate and that will cause people's creative skills to become stunted as they outsource their imagination. That would be a generational tragedy regardless of whether or not that means the actual quality of art goes up or down.

So my advice to people who use these tools would be to remember to let you control the AI and not have the AI control you.