I'm not so sure and at the moment I'm trying to resolves multiple ways of undersatnding this. I think anyone who is using it is aware of what it's doing, ie, scanning the Web for any images that relate to the inputed text. And each time they add more text, or the name of an artist they can see how it's using what it finds and the image is changing, it's happening almost in real time in front of them. I can see how impressive that is.I'm pretty sure a lot of people who generate images with AI tools have no idea how those tools work or that those tools might have been trained on copyrighted material. I'm pretty sure a lot of the users therefore aren't making an informed decision about using someone else's work.
Do you remember the whole sampling debate, at first musicians just took samples of other people's music and from those constructed something new. But then musicians made it so you could only take their creations and use it if you had permission, if you didn't then all royalties made went to the original artist. The Verve's Bitter Sweet Symphony is the well known one, where 100% of royalties went to the Rolling Stones, although apparently the Stones have now reversed that. But you often hear of lawsuits brought by musicians that think there music has efectively been stolen without their permission.
At the moment with say Midjourney, it is viewed as the creator and if you do sell work then Leap Motion(I believe the company is called) take 20%.
I think the main concern of artists, is they train for decades, they have the talent and say the vision and someone else can just 'steal' that. It's like the robots taking manual jobs, AI is taking intellect/talent jobs.
Art generating AI will change the way the creative industries work, from wall prints to gaming.
But the AI works that are made from scanning other people's works doesn't at present seem to have that human element to it, that depth, and of course that makes sense, that's the level it's operating at, whether that will change I don't know.
Artists must be concerned that if their works are being used like this it may make many redundant from a wide range of creative industries. And they have every right to protect their unique creations and livelihoods.
One of my concerns is that art as culture is continually developing, evolving and progressing and incorporates different aspects of what it is to be human from a philosophical and psychological viewpoints. And human audiences respond to that, it can often make sense of what it is to be a human at any given time.
This new AI art generation may be just a phase, a novelty, but it could also change art into a continually self referencing, self replicating sort of simulation loop. Who Knows!