On AI harming the Artists - Market competition
In support of the argument
We could argue that the unfair competition against the uniquely tailored jobs is tangible enough to justify that harm is caused to the artists. If a tool can be created to target the exact same creative space that artists have specialized in (defined by their personal style), we can easily infer that direct harm can be inflicted on the targeted individuals.
A machine can be fine-tuned to produce output in the same domain space as other artists, and in such a way cannibalized the existing demand for such creations. Such cannibalization is especially acute given how production costs of automation are dramatically lower compared to human counterparts.
What’s more, a machine would not be able to produce such targeted outputs were it not for the artist’s labor in defining and, in many cases, popularizing such space.
In defense of the argument
We have yet to see such harms materialize themselves.
For one, existing tools haven’t reached a comparable level of proficiency that can match the inputs in their training sets. However, this is a weak argument considering the high likelihood of such outputs reaching competitive quality levels in the not-so-distant future.
Another counterargument to the claim that AI will pose harm to the artists’ ability to own the market is that AI tools might democratize access to creative output. Still, it is to be proven whether such an expanse will decrease the demand for artists’ work. One could see a scenario in which the demand for artists’ work could evolve to focus on “authenticity”, provenance, uniqueness, “soul”, etc.