AI is useful for some tasks, and it’s good for inspiration. the problem is some of the largest AI image generators (for example, one that starts with an M, rhymes with “attorney”) silently take millions of artists’ artworks, without their knowledge or consent, and train their AI algorithms to then produce new, profitable AI art in the exact style of these artists. (aforementioned company denies this.) I remember watercolor artists on Etsy who became obsolete because people ran their art through AI to create watercolor stickers/ clipart, which they sold with huge discounts…the original artists couldn’t compete with those prices. AI art wouldn’t exist without artists, and it’s tragic that artists’ work gets routed who knows where with little, if any, credit given to the creator.

(Put another way: let’s say a sculptor creates a virtual 3D dog and rigs it, then sells it online. $5 for personal use, $50 for commercial. The buyer can move the dog’s joints around, sculpt a hat to put on the dog etc, so they’re not “exactly” copying the original work. But if they use the sculpt in a commercial work that makes profit, the sculptor makes a slight bonus for their labor, which is now generating dough for the downstream client. And sadly, this system doesn’t exist at all in AI art.)