Ultimately, I see it a bit like clothing or food. Once upon a time, there were only human clothiers, and only human food makers. Either you learned to do it yourself, or you hired someone to provide those services, period.

Then automation arrived and now for prices far below any reasonable human wage, you can buy mass produced fast fashion, you can buy generic frozen TV dinners, etc. Or, you can still choose to learn those trades to have a unique product for maybe less than commissioning it. Or, you can pay a premium to hire someone who has invested in learning those trades, and the price includes compensation for the process of learning, it pays for their expertise.

The difference, for now at least, is that the art that has started the AI on the path to learning how to make things was fed into the system without the consent of the original artists, so the artists earn nothing and the programmers earn everything. And that's a little bit of a bummer - just like how fast fashion companies have been known to buy slow fashion designs, rip them apart, copy the pieces, and then mass produce them. They're building off the hard work of the original designers, without their own expertise shaping the end result at all.

(Except in the case of AI, take this even one step further in terms of earning inequity because in my example above the original producer got at least one "unit" worth of earnings because the original had to be purchased in order to reverse engineer it - in AI's case the original purchase didn't even happen, the art was outright stolen and fed into the algorithm.)

Again, I'm not fully against AI art, but there are definitely unethical ways it can be used and I'm not really down for being unethical. There's no ethical consumption under capitalism but you can still choose to minimize harm where you're able.