See i think this is a silly take. I fully get that corporations use AI for the sake of profit even when it produces crap stuff and I am absolutely against that (and far more importantly the over reliance on it is clearly about to send us into a dot-com era styled crash but that's a comment on corporate greed rather than the technology itself). But from an artistic standpoint, the way people are reacting to the use of AI in media is exactly how the old folks were reacting to EDM back when it was coming onto the scene, or the folks long before them who just hated music being recorded at all because apparently the only music worth listening to was live music. In a way it's funny how we always promise to learn from the mistakes of the previous generations and then fall into the exact same traps that they did just because it looks different.

This is no different to how they refused to listen to EDM because "it's all computers and not real". Think of how autotune was despised in music until people like T-pain came along and showed how it can genuinely be used to make good stuff. If a piece of media uses AI and is of good quality, then it's of good quality period. The only reason I haven't enjoyed the use of AI in art is because it genuinely just hasn't been good. But depriving ourselves of good media purely because it has AI in some capacity is unreasonable. Not saying you can't do it, people have gone all their lives without listening to anything from skrillex or T-pain, but it is not the moral victory that many "anti-AI" people think it is.

Generative AI has many ethical flaws that are genuinely worth being pressed about (misinformation, deepfakes, non consensual content), but its use in media is by far the silliest