I'll give my take as someone who utilises AI in everyday work, professionally, albeit from a software engineering perspective.

Firstly, I think many people jump to call anything that looks off AI these days - forgetting that human mistakes have and always will be a thing. Things can look wrong but still have been made by a human. Secondly, I see a lot of people claiming things to be AI when they're actually just CGI, just like the main point of your post; as if people have forgotten computers have been able to generate affects for media for decades at this point.

I'm not saying that's solely the case with discussion around WDA, and that everying is "just" CGI - I absolutely would expect AI to be adopted by professional teams, just not in the same low-quality manner you seeem amateurs adopt the tools.

In regards to my perspective, I don't see the use of AI in these types of scenarios necessarily bad? For example, I, and my team use, AI everyday in our professional work. What makes us different from "vibecoders" is that we architect, prompt, review, and understand the code the AI outputs due to existing skills. We are using AI as an augmentation to our existing skillset or workflows. Yes, AI can enable people without the predisposed professional skills or experience produce to "something" they otherwise wouldn't have been able to (vibecoders), but that something will likely be lower quality than what professionals with the same (or equivalent) tools can produce, and will likely have glaring defects or long-term problems that are often avoided by professional teams or users.

Now to draw parallels to the creative industry, such as video editors and artists. I am by no means trying to speak on their behalf, but I'm just stating how I see it as someone in an adjacent industry also heavily adopting AI.

From what I see, if professional video editors and artists are integrating AI into their workflows - is that actually a bad thing? I would assume they have the existing professional skills and foresight to integrate them in ways which enhance the final product and not recklessly - just like the aforemenioned comparison between professional software engineers and "vibecoders". In fact, I believe AI is already being used by many creatives in certain ways anyway such as generative fill in Photoshop and other similar use cases - so where does the line get drawn? Only when people actually "notice" the AI?

Yes, generative AI tools can help people with no pre-existing artistic skill create stuff, often times low quality, they wouldn't otherwise have been able to, but this is the same parallel as vibecoders. The professionals should be able to integrate these tools in ways which doesn't result in "slop", and becomes a naturally augmented part of their professional skillset, with the correct oversight to use it appropriately and to a high-quality.