The argument that AI replaces craftsmanship misunderstands what craftsmanship was. It assumes the craft was the output: a website, a garment, a training program, a piece of code. But craft was never the output.
Craft was the standard behind the output. The thousand small decisions that don't get logged. The kerning that nobody reads but everyone feels. The decision to throw away the third version because the first two were "fine but not it."
The output is downstream
You can automate the output. You cannot automate the standard. The standard is a property of the person operating the tool, not the tool itself. A craftsman with an AI tool produces craftsmanship. An amateur with the same tool produces output. The tool is identical. The work is not.
This is not an argument against AI. I use AI every day. It accelerates the parts of my work that are mechanical. What it cannot do — what no tool has ever been able to do — is decide whether what I just shipped is up to my standard. That decision still has to come from somewhere, and the somewhere is a person.
Why the panic is misplaced
Craftsmen are not panicking about AI. The people panicking are the ones whose work was always at risk — not from AI, but from any other halfway-competent person willing to underprice them. AI is just the cheapest version of that competition.
The work that survives is the work where the standard is visible in the output. That work has always survived every previous wave of automation. It will survive this one too.
The question to ask yourself is not "can AI do my job?" The question is: is there a standard in my work that someone could feel? If yes, you are fine. If no, you should fix that, with or without AI.