I am baffled by the apparent belief that any of these "tasks" are of sufficient merit to overcome the massive environmental, legal, ethical, educational and quality drawbacks of LLM "AI". Anyone who thinks that students would draw benefit from having a machine spit out a mediocre and potentially error-raddled summary or outline instead of creating their own; or that a workplace would be improved by context-free workflow; or thinks that they would save time or effort by letting an algorithm concoct their "low-stakes" presentation or artwork which will need extensive double-checking and correcting for hallucinations, is probably already cool with the idea that they are stealing words and images created by real live humans without compensation, and melting the planet we all have to share to do it.
But sure, let's have a flagship association for librarians promote and cheerlead this destructive and pointless technology. We're so desperate to appear hip and trendy that we're happy to give up the expertise and judgment that makes our profession valuable.

while I do think your concerns are valid, I believe there is also potential for AI to enhance library services when implemented thoughtfully and ethically. The key is to strike a balance, leveraging AI's strengths while maintaining the core values and expertise that define the library profession.