If the choices presented are "just spend time or money to acquire what you want" versus "use the magic talking machine to get what you want", and people with a vested economic interest insist that only the former option is moral, then it should not be a surprise that there are a lot of people who resent anyone who labels themself "artist".
But self-interest aside, I think it's worth examining an idea that seems to be common: that if someone uses generative AI to create an image then it's the computer that did it, not them. This seems intuitive simply by looking at the processes involved compared to other visual arts, but it breaks down when you consider that digital art involves a lot of things that are the 'computer' doing the heavy lifting—merging, blurring, filters, moving layers, etc. But clearly the artist is the relevant actor here; if they didn't exist and use the tools then the product of their work would not exist regardless of whether the computer program is handling how the pixels move on the screen when the tools are applied.
But AI is also a tool, also doesn't do anything unless a human provides input. So we'll need to move our critique elsewhere. Perhaps to the degree of skill in using the specific tools? But that would be comparing apples to oranges. LLMs are controlled through the use of natural language. It's essentially a writing exercise and trying to compare skill in writing prompts to skill in visual arts is an obvious non-starter.
Maybe the answer lies in degree of effort: typing a prompt is clearly unequal to the effort involved in learning a visual medium and applying color to canvas. But here we run into another problem. Artists are happy to share tips, tricks, and tutorials for doing various things more easily, more quickly, and with less overall effort. Being able to accomplish a task with less effort is a sign of mastery, not of being unskilled. Degree of effort fails as a measure of value.
To quickly run through a few other arguments:
Quality doesn't work, because at this point generative AI has a technical error rate comparable to humans
Labor as a measure of value doesn't work because value is subjective, and a person who uses AI to make something clearly values whatever they got from it
Art is "accessible" insofar as tutorials are free, but AI beats this level of accessibility by a country mile
"Just don't use AI" runs into the "people will not just" problem
Copyright is a bad argument
The honest truth is that people who call themselves artists are gatekeeping in order to protect their industry. This is hardly anything new—traditional artists always disliked digital artists. But ultimately attempts to gatekeep artisan products in the face of technological advancement are doomed. When was the last time you saw someone who made tack for horses? They still exist, but mostly only as expensive boutiques for bespoke, low-volume products. And most people don't care, either.
At most, people might occasionally notice that there are fewer people hawking "nsfw versions available on Patreon!".
