First the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. AI art isn't going to go away much like the luddites didn't succeed in preventing the industrial revolution.
Recently
Chaosium, Stygian Fox Publishing and
Kickstarter have all come out with statements generally against the use AI art.
Stygian Fox have pointed out however the practically of not using it, they use Adobe stock art as the basis for a number of their projects and Adobe don't mention if the art is AI created or not. They have contacted Adobe, and currently Adobe don't think it is an issue.
Shutterstock, GettyImages and others don't label AI art currently.
So it puts companies in a difficult position.
They can say no to AI Art, but what if they are use to using Stock Art of models for character portraits, but those images are created by something like
This Person Does Not Exist and they aren't to know. Or they use some other piece that later turns out to be AI generated.
What if an artist uses AI for create references? At what point is it AI, or an artists work.
Also currently most AI takes training, and curating to make it passable and usable, unless it is doing something like a headshot. Look at amount of work this fella put into faking his life with AI for a month.
The number of images he is looking through and discarding, the weird hands on some, some of images are just a bit off, etc. Considering the effort needed to be convincing, is AI just another tool, it seems there is still a "job" involved in getting it right.
I vote Yes for but for ethical reasons, practically you aren't going to be able to spot what is and what isn't in a years time. Even now if someone curates the AI, and trains it well, then
it is going win competitions, without people telling until it is announced as such.