Technology presses onward, and the bleeding edge isn't conscience of whom it cuts.

Overall, I do not believe that AI can generate "art." Art being an expression of the human condition through the lens of a human. AI can generate nifty looking images, but not art.

I want to be clear. I do not oppose the advancement of this technology, even automated image generation. But I do oppose the method which it is being trained and how it is used. I believe that scraping websites and training learning models without the consent of the owner is wrong. These models should be trained on public domain works (which would include practically all of the masters) and on works artists provide (by donation or payment) of their own free will. Companies who are partaking in this practice are in violation of copyright laws that if I violated, I would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I would also like to be clear on non-generative AI tools. I am not against them if they help artists. I myself use Standard Diffusion 1.5 to upscale my own art without quality loss. I believe tools like this that add quality of life features or provide utility to artist are not only acceptable but welcome. For example, using a tool that upscales or downscales images, one that suggests color corrections (but doesn't enforce them), or as I have done, upload an initial sketch to an AI assistant that can view images and ask about proportions and composition (the AI helped me realize my figure's arms were too short and that's why it looked wrong).

Companies that use AI generated images should be required to credit the model used much like they are required to credit artists. This way consumers will be able to know how a company views art, as a picture to slap on products, or as a reflection of the human condition that enhances products.

I am on the fence about soulless corporate "art". The jobs that artists don't want to do, some technical drawings, very specific and odd clipart for the boss's power point presentation, abstract lines to put on the company brochure, etc.  Robots should be used to do the jobs people don't want to do to give us time and energy to do the things we do want to do.

As for commercials, I think a company who wants humans to consume their product will learn that they need humans to express their products, not machines.

As for the implication of this technology and its effects on artist, art, and mankind in general are summed up in the words of Dr. Ian Maclom, "Life, uh, finds a way."