While I understand where you're coming from, the issue isn't just about is 'AI is evil or not'. It's about the ethics and copyright concerns surrounding the use of AI especially in art. As I mentioned earlier in my original reply to this thread, the problem is that many AI systems that generate art are trained on pieces created by actual human artists without their consent. This essentially means that the work of individuals is being used to train these systems without proper acknowledgment or compensation, or hell even some form of being notified that their work is going to be used to train those AI.
Which brings me to your point about AI being a profession. Yes it’s important to recognize that AI still involve effort coming from those who code them, this still doesn’t remove the AI itself or its creators from the ethical responsibilities in the eyes of the law, or even from actual people. The issue here is that, regardless of the intent behind the AI, the current use often flat out IGNORES the intellectual property of human artists in ways that people find unjust or even illegal as more AI laws are getting passed depending on which country you're in.
So, even if the people developing AI have invested time and labor into their work, it doesn't remove the fact that the end products of some AI systems are built upon the unauthorized use of other people's work. This is why it raises questions about the fairness and respect for the original artists they stole from. It’s not necessarily about disliking AI as a profession, but rather about the property rights and exploiting artists without their permission. Simply put, being labeled as an 'AI Artist' does not equal you to being an actual artist in the traditional sense, unless AI is used in a way that still respects the work of human artists, for example as a reference only, we rather have that than having AI replicating or profiting from OUR work without credit or compensation.
