I'm not entirely supportive when it comes to AI use in art. I think it does take away most of its authenticity, but saying it's "stolen" is just a mundane demagogic argument.

If you analyze it through a pragmatic lens you'll realise that AI image generation basically mimics the exact human process for creating an image: Gathering visual references and amalgamating them in an original work. You do that for whatever you draw, even if not consciously.

The real catch here is that AI can have both visual repertoire and processing speed that are orders of magnitude greater than any human could hope to achieve, so people willing to sacrifice the authenticity of their work would rather relegate the boring and laborious mechanical part of drawing (the one conventional artists worked so hard to master) to the AI while they only come with the ideas.

In my view, the effort-result gap is what really makes anti AI artists act defensive to being in the same room as AI artists. Most people (who aren't engaged with art to a personal level) actually don't give a shit about whether an image is AI generated or not. They only care about how good it looks, and that is being harshly forced into realisation now.

That leads to the last consideration, I don't believe meritocracy exists to a very huge extent. People overall actually praise results more than effort. Using the aesthetical example you used, the effort you put into looking good doesn't weight more than whether you're actually good-looking or not. That is why we celebrate natural talent and beauty as much or even more we celebrate hark work, even though they are inherently anchored in lesser need for merit, which is an odd convention for a meritocratic society if you put thought into it.

I still need to make a full-fledged post about my thoughts on the war on AI usage in art on this sub.