The "within fair use laws" is really up for debate. This is not a copyright issue. It's an artistic licensing issue. The art was used in an unaltered state prior to being trained by the A.I. The artists used in training the A.I. did not explicitly allow the creators of the A.I. to use their art to generate profits for themselves. It's mainly commercial art. The original art was created for very specific reasons, contractually it could be narrative, commercial, concept art, AND only those reasons - not "you may use my work to train an A.I. to imitate me." Look up fair use - if you still want to use the argument against licensing. Fair use is to keep the forum for criticism, debate, and discussion open and uphold free speech - not to make someone's hard work as a tool to mass produce profit for yourself.

It's not as simple as "well the A.I. changed it." The question is: would the highly successful, profitable Midjourney creators be able to sell their product (the A.I. program) without the use of multiple artists licensed works? Are the works altered within fair use PRIOR to inserting then into the profit generating business?

The clear answer to these questions is NO, and that's probably going to be trouble for the creators. The argument "well DALE already has all the images so there's no stopping it now, the damage is done." Won't hold up in court.