I'm a "manual" digital artist, and seeing the AI hate actually kind of hurts, because it reminds me of the digital vs. traditional conflict happening only slightly more than a decade ago. As a child I getting berated, occasionally by my own mother, for thinking my art could have the same value as traditional work. The arguments are pretty much the same: "what you're doing is easy, hit a button and the computer does it for you." When from what I've seen of AI workflow, it's often not just typing a prompt and hitting a button. When I try, I'm not even good at it-- better than people who've never done any sort of art before, but nothing impressive.
It's also really confusing to see people acting like the software is the problem and shitting on indie AI artists who are being honest about their workflow for "stealing", when such an argument would mean massive corporations who own millions of images would have no problem firing all their artists anyway.
AI art wasn't widely available until fairly recently, the way the software functions is new. Why define this thing that's never been done before as "stealing" when that would ultimately only benefit the wealthy? When any one reference gets diluted under thousands of others, when the software "learns" in a similar way to humans, when the original image isn't even saved? I've worried enough about accidentally drawing something similar to an image I don't remember seeing, should I worry more? Is that theft?
Hell, I couldn't even get any work before and stopped trying before AI Art was even a thing, most of us couldn't. AI didn't generate the starving artist-- most of us had to quit for better paying jobs long before. All AI meant to me was "oh hey, now I can generate a basket of bunnies when I'm feeling stressed from work," and as someone who was once quite bad at describing anything (still kind of am) I could learn how to speak in ways that were actually intelligible to others, because now I knew what most people were picturing.
Although I once dreamed of being paid to make art all day, I never made it to get paid-- I made art for the sake of it, because I loved it and I loved the process and I chose digital because I loved to draw and feared wasting material. I wish people didn't need to work for the right to survive, and that all art was valued, regardless of its economic viability. The software isn't the threat-- the system is.
As another Digital Artist who experienced similar issues, I can relate to this post deeply. Like OP, I also started my Digital Art training when I was a child, and was verbally harrassed by traditional arists during the transition when Traditionalist were being forced off media platforms by Digital Artists. I've also been on both sides of this debate about whether AI should be considered an "Art form" ((note; the form as it utilizing new medium of tech through Digital art)) and these last three years come to appericate AI as a tool, not a replacement.
Yes, there has been disgusting arrogance on both sides that have affected the general perception of the tool. But sadly so has the view of artists as whole because of raging antics from more vocal people gathering support on multiple media profiles. Some of these people truly believe they are "protecting artists" but in reality causing more issues for everyone, including themselves, by not being versed in Digital Art History and technological change. These debates happened during the transition of Digital Art, before that it was Cartoon art with simple shading for animation, don't forget Abstract Art, the list goes on and on but not being aware of the past just doubles down on the arrogance and bad reputation towards being creative.
I strongly believe that Generative AI is incredibly helpful when used in the conception of art because it pulls from a large variety of ideas and themes. But! It isn't replacing an Artist, as it still takes Mastery of understanding, figure, form, color, Shading, lighting, Texture, perspective, and personal style to truly bend the AI with one's own skills to make art with it.