I would not go over semantics in this discussion, stealing is fine if you look at it this way. I am not sure if it applies, but courts will decide that.
All that said this will not change anything at all, even if the courts decide midjourney can not use public available images without consent (unlike in japan), all that happens is that a company with way more money way bigger (google, microsoft...) will buy rights to enough images to just train their model (in addition to cc0 art). At which point we are right back where we are right now. I honestly have a different view then you (stealing vs not stealing), but in the grant scheme of things it just does not matter. These generators are here, maybe its not midjourney, maybe it will be open ai with microsoft money who trainst their next dalle with just images where they have the right to. It will come and it wont be stopped, maybe slowed down a little.
When it comes to creativity, I always smile when people bring these arguments. Because what is creative the skill of being able to draw or deciding on what to draw? Or is the skill to translate the language into a picture?If it is the skill of drawing a printer is creative if it is deciding what to draw the user of an AI image generator is creative. If it is the translation of language into a picture it would be the AI generator itself. But once again I am not sure whats the point of the discussion, I think there will always be a place for human drawings, just way more niche then it will be and there will be alot of uses for AI art as well. I also dont think the the skills are the same or if we need to discuss about whats creative and whats not. I think the hostility against AI art usually has nothing to do with any of the things I mentioned above, it is because people love that they can paint for money and they dont want to lose the opporturnity and I completly understand and feel with you. The sad truth is that automation doesnt care about if people like the job or not and we have to somehow deal with that.
For me I am using art from asset packs right now for my game, it certainly does not make a difference if I am using AI art and pay a small tech startup or I am paying a small art company providing these art assets. It is just different people getting payed, maybe you dont like the company I am paying, but who says that the art company is any better?
So my question to you is, if I would use AI that only used cc0 images or images where it has the rights to do it, would it really make a differnce for you. (Like let's say adobe firefly)
And bonus question do you also feel the same way about my game if I continue to use premade assets?
Viewing post in Are AI Assets Controversial on Itch io?
Very good points. You are better with words than I am. I see similar issues as you, but expressed them differently.
The pure skill aspect is very visible with a street painter that makes caricatures in a few minutes. I believe there are photo filters on phones that do similar.
And the non skill expression aspect is very visible with a toddler happily fingerpainting.
There is a little simile with the work of canvas painters and photographers. A photographer need not know how to paint. But what he creates is a picture. So is it art? It is not even artificial (before the rise of photoshop). With the skill definition it is of course art. You need to know what you are doing, or your photos do look boring or even mechanicaly bad, like unfocused. But you did not create what is seen in the picture. You only chose what of the hundreds of snapshots you took will be released.
So in a way, what an AI operator does has similarities with what a photographer does. And tickling out good AI images also takes skill. If you take photos of humans you even need to give them directions. So my best guess would be, that the best AI operators would currently be good photographers that grasp the language they need to instruct the AI.