Will AI Replace Artists?

If you haven’t asked yourself if AI art will put artists out of the job, you aren’t paying attention.

AI art has been flooding online channels like Instagram, Pinterest, and Artstation. And people are starting to ask themselves a very simple question:

Are artists going to lose out to AI?

In this article, I’ll tell you my take on this as an experienced professional artist and an active member of the digital art community. You can also check out my full conversation with fellow artist Adrian Virlan on the subject right here.

UPDATE Oct 26, 2022: Due to the popularity of this article and my own continued research on the subject, I have amended some parts of the article. I would like to take the stronger stance that AI generated art should not be dismissed or ignored. It presents an active existential threat to artists and art itself, if allowed to continue unchecked without legislative intervention.

I would highly recommend you check out this video from Steven Zapata for a more in-depth discussion of this potential.

If you are interested in taking a stand against AI Art, please make your voice heard. While the technology may not be going away, we can still fight to preserve the livelihood of artists.

Support the Concept Art Association’s efforts to support artists right here, or sign petitions like this one to limit the use and sourcing of AI art generators.

What is AI Art?

You may have read a recent Vice article about this AI artwork that won a digital art competition in Colorado. It’s one of many recent examples of situations where AI art has outcompeted other forms of artwork.

A piece of ai art created by Jason Allen for an art contest
Jason Allen’s AI-generated work “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial”, created with Midjourney

Artist Jason Allen created this piece using a software called Midjourney—a program that uses artificial intelligence and a huge database of internet-sourced images to generate digital artwork.

The software, and others like it, have become increasingly popular among both artists and non-artists. The algorithms have become advanced enough to replicate Renaissance-level master works of arts in a matter of minutes simply by typing in a few word prompts.

At the moment, many of these raw products have noticeable flaws, and can still be identified as AI-created art.

However, the untrained eye might easily be fooled. Take this AI generated piece that sold for over $90,000, and the reaction of the buyer:

Buyers of artificially generated art may not be able to catch an AI artwork when they see it. And this will only become more frequent as the algorithm becomes more advanced.

So what’s the big deal?

Creating AI art is currently an imperfect science. When I’m scrolling through my Instagram feed, I can usually spot an AI artwork. The programs still have trouble getting eyes right, and hands, and usually lack a general sense of design.

But for most people, many of these works are now indistinguishable from an artist’s hand. Already, people are flooding social media with AI art, selling prints, Patreon subscriptions, and more.

If you look at the comments on many of these artworks, you’ll see clearly that 90% of their followers are unaware of this. Not only that, but some of these individuals actively take credit for these AI creations.

And the technology is only getting more sophisticated by the day.

Not only that, but its vastly quicker and cheaper than hiring an artist, and requires no technical artistic skill, often with incredible results.

What do artists think about AI art?

Many artists are excited about the possibilities, while others are gripped with fear. How can an illustrator make a living, charging $500-600 per piece, when anyone with a decent computer can create 10 artworks of higher quality in a matter of minutes and sell them at 50 bucks a pop?

As a concept artist an illustrator myself, I cannot ignore this threat to my profession.

I’ll be honest—AI art scares the hell out of me. And I think a lot of other artists are feeling this, too.

Still, I see a lot of artists in my community getting excited about it. What they can create in Midjourney totally amazes them, after struggling for so long to develop their own art skills to a comparable level.

And I don’t blame them. Being an artist is hard right now.

The threshold for technical skill has dramatically increased in recent years, even while demand for art remains high. Already, art directors expect concept artists to be competent in a variety of digital softwares, including Photoshop, Blender, Zbrush, and more. And they expect smaller turnaround times to meet the demands for huge film and game titles.

It’s only natural to jump on the first thing that lets you create better quality art more quickly.

I think what many of these artists don’t realize is that they are themselves perpetuating the increase in demand.

The more artists use this software, the more advanced it becomes, and the higher the skill threshold rises.

Unethical image sourcing

Not only this, but many established artists are publicly taking issue with how the images that fuel AI art are sourced.

Take Greg Rutkowski, for example, who is one of my all time favorite artists whose name has become the #1 most used artist name to generate AI artwork. 

AI art programs are drawing from a massive database which includes both copyrighted and non-copyrighted material, which includes works from living professional artists, photos of living faces, and even confidential medical records.

Not only is this a massive violation of copyright, but it’s allowing anyone with access to the software to churn out thousands of artworks in the style of an existing artist.

Check out this article about Greg Rutkowski’s stance on AI art image sourcing.

So will artists still be needed?

A hand sketching on a sketch pad

When I first wrote this article, I was feeling somewhat optimistic about this. Even with inevitable advancements in AI software, we would still need artists to “curate” the work. That might mean making adjustments or compositing the results in Photoshop. It might mean inputting the correct prompts for the project, or designing a base for the AI to work from.

However, following conversations with other artists and my own personal research, I feel now that the threat is far greater than I originally imagined.

First, it’s absurd to think that artists are a “necessary” part of the AI art equation. At first, many AI artists will consider themselves “curators” or “promptists”. Even now, many artists boast about the skill needed to input the right word prompts to get a particular result.

But to think that AI software requires human input to do this is absurd. The capacity for AI to generate the prompts needed to generate the artwork is built into the programs themselves. And the more people use the software, the more it learns what prompts will generate the most desirable results.

In short: AI does not need us to generate artwork. Human creative input is a facade to aid in the refinement of the technology that has the absolute potential to fully replace artists.

The best case scenario

Without active intervention, the best case scenario will be likely be something like this:

The highest levels of professional art, an artist-AI symbiosis is would be required to keep up with the demand. The most adaptable artists are already incorporating AI into their workflow as we speak. They’re already skilled enough to use the software to improve their workflow and work quality.

As for the rest of us, I would expect two things to happen.

First, AI generated art from non-artists and artists alike will likely become widespread and cheap. It will outcompete amateur and professional artists in most commercial realms. If you simply want “great art”, it will make more sense to simply have a robot create it for a fraction of the cost than paying some amateur right out of art school.

Second (and here’s the silver lining for you purists), I expect that quality hand-crafted (yes, even digital) art could become far more valuable. Not necessarily for everyday commercial projects, but as part of an artist’s brand.

Oil painters, artisans, and ceramicists have not gone out of business, despite the widespread availability of cheaper, even higher quality products.

I have a friend who makes a killing selling hand-crafted animal jewelry, and makes a decent living at it, too. Now, you could go online and get a pair of fish earrings for $10 on Amazon whenever you want (and guess what—people do).

But some people don’t want just any fish earring, they want a fish earring from her.

Because they see her making them on Instagram, and they know her story, and she has a whole identity around this. And they’re willing to pay a higher price for them. They want the earrings from “the girl who makes the fish earrings”, not from “fish-earrings-to-go.com”.

However, this will cement human-made art firmly in the realm of collectible curiosities of the upper class. It would be highly competitive, subjective, and based largely on collective perceived value—which, in my opinion, is compounding some of the worst attributes of the professional art industry.

AI art will change everything

A digital ai artwork created in Midjourney

Of course people are going to buy and trade AI art and it’s going to become a huge part of a highly competitive art industry. It’s going to put a lot of people out of work. It’s going to force others to adapt.

It is possible that in some cases, people will still want to hire a person. They won’t want art created by Midjourney. They want art created by Artist X, who may or may not use AI in their work.

Basically, some people may want an artist who uses AI and some people will think it’s cheap and soulless. Either way, it’s tied to the creator and their brand somehow. Take the earlier AI piece that was sold for 90K. The buyer was totally thrilled about it. Maybe they didn’t know it was AI and they were fooled. And people should absolutely be accountable for that.

But maybe they’re just thrilled to get a cool art piece created by someone that they know uses AI, and they’re ok with it.

Also, people love to see the process. I imagine that’s what brought a lot of people to my community, to see all of my live streams and process videos (like this one here), where I create the artwork from scratch before your eyes.

And honestly, who wants to see process videos of artists plugging words into an algorithm and watching the program spit out different paintings?

Maybe some people will, but it sounds pretty boring to me.

What can we do?

No to AI art
An image that flooded Artstation in response to art feeds being taken over by AI Art

Personally, I empathize with many artists and non-artists who are compelled to use AI to create art. It’s already such a competitive world out there, and developing the skills to make a living from your art can take decades. And I’m sure it’s endlessly fascinating to watch a program spit out beautiful images from your prompts.

If you follow me and my art, you’ll know that I started out drawing as a kid, and studied oil painting and ceramics in college. Since then, I’ve been fascinated by new technological tools I can use in my art—Photoshop, Blender, all kinds of stuff. I love learning new things, and experimenting with new media.

But make mo mistake: this is not just another tool. This is a marked transition in the history of art itself, and human creativity itself is at stake.

I personally do not want to live in a world where machines are responsible for telling our stories, for generating our ideas, and expressing the most ancient and essential quality of being human—our art.

Unfortunately, I can’t justify simply ignoring this trend either. I believe concrete legislative action needs to be taken to curb the unchecked growth of AI art technology, and the unethical sourcing of images upon which it is based.

If you want to be part of this movement, make your voice heard. Use social media platforms to show your support for artists, contribute to fundraisers like this one from the Concept Art Association, sign petitions, and push for the labeling of AI artworks and ethical image sourcing. Already, there is a growing body of artists resisting this trend, as evidenced by the massive movement on Artstation posting the above image to their profiles.

Either way, I’m undeterred. I will continue to fight for the right for artists to be valued members of society, and for the restriction and limitation, and ethical use of this technology. Meanwhile, I’m going to continue creating art and improving my skills, and I’m grateful for all of you who are following and supporting my work.



15 thoughts on “Will AI Replace Artists?”

  1. Avatar

    Thank you for this informative article. Yesterday I did a bit of reasearch about AI art. I was shocked to find a site ‘Have I been trained’ that showed me that my art was indeed used to train AI softwear.
    I do mostly private comissions in traditional mediums and I work full time as a language teacher so this hasn’t exactly jeoparizied my livelihood. However, it did for many modern artist (especially digital ones) and we really need to take a stand against unethical sourcing.

  2. Avatar

    Copyright doesn’t apply to web scraping. It’s already been ruled. I’m sorry that that’s going to hurt you significantly but I’m also not really? I mean copyright is the number one destruction of human innovation. It’s a way for corporations to hamstring competition. Ironically enough the people that benefit the least from it because they don’t have the know-how, the scale, or the time to devote to creating internet nannying software that goes around and checks and make sure that nobody’s using your images and then DMCAs them.

    How many times do you see corporations literally just rip your stuff offline without attribution? And honestly good for them. Copyright was much too long as it was and if AI is the thing that gets us to be like well copyrights now the number one harmed innovation, will probably move it back to four plus four years like it ought have this whole time.

    Reality is some artists paint with a brush, some artist paint with a bot. The brush artists are mad because the bot paints better and the bot artist couldn’t care less because they’re the ones doing the good painting.

    It is a good thing If people are taking credit for creating a I generated artwork. They wrote the prompts, and the prompts or the art now. That’s going to be super weird when it used to be the lines, the brushstrokes, but now it’s all going to be about how you understand general art composition and how you can massage the machine into outputting your vision. It’s going to be a completely different type of interaction then just whipping out whatever you’re drawing utensil is and it’s going to be awesome.

    You know what makes art better? It’s not an artist. Artist almost never drive things forward consistently. It’s amateurs with access to cheap tools and more imagination than your average artist is ever going to possess. Purely due to scale.

    It’ll also have people with ideas but no technical skills to bring those ideas to life. Would you take that away from disabled groups just so you could have a job that’s going to go away no matter what you do?

    If anything you should be spending this time trying to find new skills whether that’s coding, or any other sort of things.

    Don’t harm others just to protect your selfish dream. instead improve yourself to protect your lifestyle.

    Realistically, artists will be fine. 95% of you will go out of business, but you also didn’t really contribute much to the world in any way shape or form anyways? Like sorry but there’s a reason nobody’s willing to pay a lot for your work. It’s because that’s the market has valueded it. There’s nothing wrong with it, you probably put really high quality work out there it’s just the market doesn’t value art like that anymore.

    Everyone who really questionably through money into a 4-year art degree is probably going to have a rough time, like literally every other single industry in the world that is even remotely impacted by AI. Weird the rest of them are kind of happy about it though. Maybe take a leaf from their book?

    Common artists are going to die out except for like boutique firms kind of like boutique alcohol. They’ll probably still be x percent from the top they get hired at professional institutions, but anybody who would hire anyone on an amateur level will just go to AI and do it themselves.

    But wait, this is where you come in. We have website generating applications now. I’ve used one, they work all right. I definitely was able to put together a website much better than what I would have been able to do on my own. But it’s not like perfectly flawless and professional, and if I would like to go for that I would almost certainly have to hire someone with experience in the field to help me figure out how to properly use that website app.

    That’s going to be you guys, we won’t know proper art techniques, setting, framing and all sorts of buzzwords I’m sure I don’t know and you do, and it will be your job as a consultant, and AI art consultant, to come in and help me fine-tune my artwork.

    That’ll be a pretty big new industry. And the smart artists are going to try and get into it and create a portfolio right now. The others are crying about regulation that’s never going to pass and copyright laws they don’t understand.

    1. Eben Schumacher

      Hey NM,

      I welcome your perspective here, even if it hurts me a bit to read this. I think it’s important for both sides of this topic to understand one another. The thing I would wish to impart to you and to other advocates for this technology is the immense importance that art and creativity in general has for me, and many others like me.

      The truth is, this issue is bringing to light a problem that the art community has had for years, and this is the perceived and/or existing elitism and classism present within the culture. I would guess this is what leads writers like yourself to see artists as removed and disconnected from the workforce, and even to feel hostile towards artists in general. Maybe art seems to you like an upper class privilege, something that only those with leisure and wealth can pursue.

      And to an extent, you may be right. I saw this myself in the art culture that was growing around colleges and art schools and the galleries that we were expected to submit our work to. I think you’re right to see this and feel that we can do without it, and that art should be something that everyone can share in, regardless of education or class or social standing.

      However, for me art has always had a different meaning, which is why I had to distance myself from that culture. As a kid, drawing was how I could find relief. It was how I escaped my pain, how I coped with a world that I just didn’t seem to fit into. Without the means to pour myself into my art and creativity, and to see the rewards of watching those skills build over time, I would not be here today.

      I knew that making a living from this was a long shot. But it was a challenge I created for myself—a way that I could fit into a world where I felt like an outsider. And while many others around me were integrating into society, and (prudently) choosing well-paying careers and starting families, I was grinding away at these skills, building the infrastructure for my business, and fruitlessly applying to art jobs. I lived in self-imposed poverty, spending months at a time living and working from my car so I could save on rent.

      And this was my choice, not because I wanted to be part of some class of tortured creatives, but because the pursuit, the satisfaction of diving deeper into a creative outlet, seeing new rewards from the skills I was developing, was all worth it. If I could make a living as an artist, I would be a valued for who I was at my core.

      I think many artists are in similar positions, and the scraping of their work by AI art companies represents a very conscious decision to take advantage of this desperation. They know we are desperate to succeed, and they know how important it is for us to meet our own standards of quality. So it’s easy for them to convince us that by freely feeding our work into the machine, we are the ones who ultimately benefit.

      And yes, copyright is one of many ways large corporations have taken advantage of the common population. However, I would argue that unchecked data mining poses a much larger threat. I think what people who are pro AI art are missing is that they are not needed for this equation to work. The companies that are training this tech are relying on human input for now to refine their algorithm, but they can just as quickly use the same intelligence to generate the prompts themselves.

      And if we are judging prompt generation to be the new tool for artists, why then would anyone need a “promptist” over an AI that can judge what a company’s art needs will be and how to execute that vision?

      I see no end to this cycle, which is why it is important to set a precedent now that allows humans to retain their right to make a living from their work and their creativity. This is they key to making art accessible to the masses–not by removing the ability for artists to remain competitive by outsourcing creativity to artificial intelligence (which makes worse a problem that already exists within the industry), but restructuring the industry so that more jobs are available to artists of many different skill levels and socioeconomic classes.

      The pursuit of creativity and the means to support oneself through their creativity is one of the most valuable things we have as humans. Truly, I cannot imagine a life worth living without this.

      In any case, I appreciate you taking the time to share your voice here, and I hope you’ll take this perspective into consideration, as I have yours.


  3. Avatar

    As someone with a few years of experience freelancing (in the music industry) I can see this technology completely obliterating the global market in freelance/commission spaces.
    Working on Fiverr and via my own website, I barely broke even on most commissions due to market saturation, competition from low-cost-of-living areas and inflation. My only consistent source of income at the time were the clients with whom I had a personal relationship with and who respected my art for its value in having been made by me.

    Even in my limited experience with digital and tradition visual art, the power of AIs like Stable Diffusion is apparent. For example – I could imagine that if a MUSIC generation AI had been created that matched the relative quality of generation displayed within say, a refined DALL-E portrait, that a number of my less inspired cooperate commissions could’ve been generated within an hour at most of careful fiddling, vs the 4-5 hours I might spend on one. The appeal to virtually any business is insane. Going from, at minimum, a $100-200 USD expenditure, often requiring revision and potentially never meeting exact standards, to a free 1-2 hour time investment to get often similar quality work and potentially a larger quantity of it… I don’t think you could find any business that wouldn’t jump on that opportunity. Combine this with the competition from places like India and SE Asia where education and cost-of-living are very cheap and the future of freelance artists looks somewhat bleak.

    Of course as I mentioned, there will always be people looking to support other PEOPLE for their art – but in the freelance space, these are often the exception, NOT the rule. I don’t see freelance/commission work disappearing entirely – I think in many ways we will see a continuation of trends we’ve already been seeing. In particular, I can see clients, instead of requesting 5-10 concepts for a project requesting 50 or even 100, and expecting them to be completed on ever more ridiculous time-scales (from a few weeks to a few hours).
    Because of the massive, (multiple orders of magnitude level) increase in productivity due to AI, freelance artists will simply be expected to AT LEAST match that and more likely than not, EXCEDE it – whether that be in terms of quality, quantity etc.

    Soon, I believe this will lead to the online freelance space (what’s left of it) being dominated by artists, who will likely be skilled in there own right, generating100s of images then revising a large number of them for impatient clientele with constantly increasing expectations – completely destroying the creative and collaborative process involved in commission work, and likewise the reason many part-time professionals like myself, practice freelancing/commission work.

    I’m fortunate and thankful that the field of music I work in has remained mostly unaffected by AI, but I know it is only a matter of time until the freelance music space is completely overrun as well. The silver lining of “traditional art” or “human-made art” having increased rarity/value does ring true with me to an extent – but when it comes to career progression as an artist, especially in the freelance/gig/semi-professional space, I think AI will become a significant roadblock on many peoples’ artistic journeys.

  4. Avatar

    I’ve been watching “The Joy of Painting” lately on youtube. I haven’t tried painting like Bob Ross yet because money is tight and I don’t think I can afford oil paint right now. I also watch techlinked from LMG. They’ve been covering this AI art fiasco over the past two months. The sad thing is, I wouldn’t know about any of this if it wasn’t for them. The mainstream news isn’t covering this at all, as far as I know.

    At any rate, a few moments ago it occurred to me … Why don’t I try painting on digital? I have never seriously considered this before. I started thinking, “Hey, maybe I could make some money at this.” Then I remembered the whole AI thing. I had to honestly wonder, “Is it even worth it to get into digital art right now?”

    So I googled “will AI replace digital artists?” Your article was the first result. Thank you for writing a very straightforward and astute article. You took it a step further by recommending legislative action and I agree with you 100%. I think the danger posed by this is very, very real… Why would anyone want to live in a society where artists can’t afford to make art?

    Sorry to say, the experience of watching an entire career path evaporate before my eyes at the very moment it is conceived is surreal and almost mind-numbing. I can’t even imagine what it must be like to be a sophomore or junior in a digital art college program right now.

    I hope more awareness can be raised about this issue so we can change the path we are currently on.

    1. Eben Schumacher

      Thank you so much for this comment, Rob. So glad you’re still on that Bob Ross train—he has come to my mind quite a lot recently in response to this. He represents the complete antithesis of AI Art—immersing yourself in the process and not worrying too much about the results.

      Second, I feel you with regards to the surreal, mind-numbing existential power of this moment. I have struggled deeply with it myself. People need to be aware that this is happening and how it is manifesting on an emotional level.

      I appreciate your solidarity and I hope that together we can shift from despair into action.

  5. Avatar

    Ai art is just a fetus, and as it advances it will most certainly
    replace many parts of a production pipeline.
    I’ve been doing 3D graphics , starting on the Amiga in the 80’s
    I started professionally in 1994 as an animator, modeler, and designer on Reboot.

    Bottom line, artists are tools for the producer to realize their vision. Tools cost money and companies will reduce production costs in a hot minute if they can. Production companies will save a bundle of money.

    Also, every talentless jackass will now be able to create and sell incredible artworks.
    Ai will be able to create characters, add the deformers, and do the animation with the production crew guiding it along. A small handful of people will still want hand painted art, but the majority of ‘heads buried up their phones ass’ wont care who produces it, as long as it looks cool. 🙂 yeah!

    Ai will also be able to write the scripts for films, considering Ai has access to the hero, his 1000 faces and can generate more than a thousand faces. The model will be what is successful, especially since
    human story telling is the same rehash: rise, rise-fall, rise-fall-rise, fall-rise-fall, etc. Rather simple model to follow, for a computer.

    Sure there will still be purists who will only purchase art made by real people. But they’ll be as plentiful as Vinyl record purists. The rest of the mindless horde wont give a damn shit, believe me.

    One of the biggest benefits of Ai art in the production pipeline is that it’ll replace all the whiny narcissistic artists that make life in a studio so miserable for everyone else. Christ how many princess jesus christ premadonna narcissists do you have to deal with in production companies before you decide to throw one out the 100th story window. These narcissistic assholes will be gone so that’s one blessing. Ai wont talk back, wont backstab to get somewhere, never late, never eat, never sleep, never argue, never complain, never ask for more money or a promotion. Why then, would a director want to put up with a malignant narcissist when they don’t have to. How many times I’ve witnessed big hoohas
    of ego and sometimes nearly fist fights just over criticism, a color change, a shot angle…wow!
    A studio devoid of narcissists would be a godsend.

    And 3D art is full of narcissists especially in game production. Probably, because back in the day it was cool, amazing, incredible to be a 3d artist and work on films or games so these cretins were drawn to it for all the fawning attention and admiration. Pathetic, really.

    So yeah I do see Ai replacing artists in the mid run, not the long run.

    In the long run, anyone will be able to create a film, 3d game, tell a story, etc just by interacting with their Ai of choice…until the next Carrington event 🙂 Then it’s back to pencil and paper.

    -reboot guy

    1. Eben Schumacher

      Interesting perspective. I agree that AI has the huge potential to replace artists without legislative action. I would argue that the potential pros of outcompeting “narcissistic artists” is not a significant benefit to outweigh the huge potential for AI to decimate the art market. Yes, of course there are a few bad eggs out there. But we’re human. Having flaws is exactly what makes our lives meaningful. Narcissism has its way of sorting itself out through social buffers. As it stands, AI art has no buffers. It’s not self-correcting, and millions of honest, well-intentioned artists will suffer the consequences along with the less desirable personalities.

      1. Avatar

        What does the art market need to not be decimated? It has no actual real value on an economic level. Nothing would be lost if it disappeared and was replaced with AI. Especially since you all post your work on the internet, where it can be legally scraped.

        9 out of 10 humans are never going to look at a quality illustration after high school/college. It’s been my experience that art is just artists producing art for other artists, or hobbyists. Quite literally the single most innocuous field to just be the front runner for removal through AI.

        It’s like McDonald’s workers complaining that they now are going to have to lose jobs to touch screens. This is fine, natural and excellent innovation. Faster,less error prone and more scalable.

  6. Avatar

    Thank you for this. I feel you have perfectly summed up my exact thoughts on the subject. I think that known artists cannot be entirely replaced for people who actually care about who we are as artists. But unfortunately concept artists and illustrators in any space where the end result is all that matters, artists and non-artists will become curators rather than creators. If any non-artist can use your art to generate more pieces in your style, why would a corporation spend the money to hire you? Or maybe they do hire you, or another artist, for a couple hours of cleanup versus rendering entire pieces. In any case I do think that while we wont’ be entirely replaced, it will significantly reduce the number of commercial opportunities for an artist to do what they do best, create.

    1. Eben Schumacher

      I’m glad you share my perspective, Jenn. I’m actually working on some revisions to this article now. In fact, if it proceeds unchecked, AI art may in fact have the power to fully replace artists, as the ability to generate prompts and “curate” the process is built within the capabilities of the AI itself, even if it is now marketed as needed a human pilot. If you think about it, inputting word prompts is the simplest possible exercise when compared with the immensely complex algorithms generating the artwork itself. It’s ludicrous to think that companies will rely on artists to generate those prompts when an AI would be far more suited to the task. In short—this is a huge problem. And action needs to be taken immediately to prevent this.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *