Simple and shitty art is low hanging fruit. Good and original art is not.

I didn't give you an example of the art that is being automated, and you are calling it shitty without knowing about it. Here is an example, of course it is not perfect but it is far from shitty and it is one of older first attempts (even video is 5 years old).

I am saying it will not be fully automated unless general AI exists.

It is partially automated with our current information about automation that is less than hundred years, so what makes you say it won't be fully automated without a general AI? What part of science requires general intelligence? It is a process that can be automated, has been partially automated and will be automated without a general intelligence.

LOL! Not true at all. Some limited aspects of certain specializations are being automated. AI is at best used as a tool for a doctor to have, not as a replacement.

So "All of it is not automated yet, so it will never be" is your argument? We partially automated the jobs of a doctor already, which only proves that it is possible to fully automate it.

Where are those automatic lawyers then?

We are discussing whether all jobs can be automated, not if they are automated yet. If a job is a process that can be simplified as an algorithm, it can be automated. Being a lawyer is a system of analyzing evidence and constructing a defense based on multiple factors, all within the boundaries of field of law. It doesn't require a general intelligence in multiple fields to be a good lawyer.

WTF? Vast majority of science is not automated at all.

Here is a simple graph of what "Scientific method" is, research, hyphotesis, experiment and analysis part are arguably already automated for many fields, but my biggest argument to why science can be automated is, it can be summed up as an algorithm, simplified as a system that can be automated.

I mean, I am a big fan of AI and I believe it will replace ALL jobs in more distant future

Your argument is AI will replace all jobs when AI becomes indistinguishable from humans, which is not necessary for any job. So you are saying all jobs will not be able to be automated by anything other than human-like intelligence, which is false, you don't need a general intelligence to analyze evidence, construct a hypothesis based on research etc.

but some of your replies are borderline delusional

You are the one delusional if you think there is anything special in human mind that requires a complete mimic to do any of the current jobs we are doing. Us being a general intelligence has no significant effect on any of the jobs we perform. You don't need a general intelligence to replace a human for science or to be a lawyer or to even govern.

AI will replace many simpler jobs but replacing jobs such as doctors or lawyers or scientists or maybe artists is still complete sci-fi. And that is a fact.

Funny enough actual facts are showing that jobs you named are alraedy being partially automated more and more without needing a general intelligence.