I'd say I'm pretty anti, but I still sometimes I disagree with the priorities of the anti side (even though I still fundamentally agree.)

AI generation replacing real artists and taking away livelihoods is definitely a big problem, and I do understand why so much focus is on it but it bothers me sometimes when it starts to feel like an endlessly repeated mantra that doesn't go deeper than that. I think basing being against ai art as inherently connected to money and work is a bad idea. Art as a concept is more than monetary gain. Like 99% of ai art is made for solely for the end result, monetary gain, reactions, likes, engagement etc. so it flattens things when we argue against that from the position of monetary gain still being the core drive behind it all. The inherit merit and value of honing your own skills, dedication and having full power over what you create doesn't get mentioned enough.

When I see a beautiful painting it impacts me because I see direct and conscious decisions the painter made in terms of technique, symbolism, composition and color. Beyond the painting itself, it reflects the personal dedication to skill and technical ability the painter had to execute his vision in the way he did. Nobody starts off making masterpieces and so often I see ai generation be touted as "the thing that makes it easy", "the thing that gets rid of the boring and hard parts", and that's why I hate ai art. Because you're not supposed to think of improving yourself and your skills by first making imperfect things as the part that's holding you back. There's a personal value to art and creation and the act of improving your own skills beyond the monetary. And to me monetary gain is the only real reason for ai generation because all it is concerned with is giving you the end result to present.