Like most people, I'm not so much "pro-ai art", it's just that the arguments against it are objectively bad. More than that, the main "solutions" offered so far are centered on copyright and would make things worse for everyone. And a big thing that would justify anti-AI art positions is actual grievances from artists, that their livelihood is negatively impacted by AI art. But this is not happening so far, may never happen, and if it does copyright isn't gonna save you, especially if you draw fan art! Copyright enforcement will hurt you much more surely and immediately than AI art possibly can. Some of those reactions to AI art really look like people racing to shoot themselves in the foot as fast as possible.
I would have nothing against a scheme where artists are remunerated for their art being included in training data for a neural network, but realistically it'd be a tiny amount, and legally any law that obligates them to do it would have to be very carefully written, AND would be extremely hard (basically impossible) to enforce. For the most part AI art doesn't involve "stealing art" anymore than me clicking "save as" on it. Saying that it constitutes theft would most likely make a lot of human art illegal (not that AI art isn't human art anyway).
And related to that, a lot of anti-AI art folks start pontificating on the nature of art in ways that are terrible and sometimes factually wrong. Now, this has nothing to do with the legal status of AI art and is a waste of time, but often they take really reactionary positions on it, like straight up 1860s salon definitions of what Real Art is. Not only is that self-defeating in a way (many of those people would not have been considered artists at all 130 years ago and certainly would not have been considered "real" artists 50 years ago. Heck, when I was a kid 20 years ago, the idea that you could make a living drawing anime fan art would have gotten you laughed out of the room by any self-respecting professional artist. Some of them can barely show their art in polite company today! Restricting the definition of "art" is not to their advantage!), I don't even think those people would have defended that vision of art a year ago. They changed their entire view on art on the basis of a moral panic and either they don't acknowledge the implications, or they've actually turned into the art elitists they should be fighting against.
People legitimately should read about actual historical cases of people being put out of work by new technology. It's a very real problem, but a) it's not happening to artists now or in the immediately foreseeable future and b) when it happens, technology itself isn't the problem.
