Gotta be honest, a lot of the arguments against AI art have a very "You wouldn't down load a car" feel to them.

You know I would. And so would you.

A better analogy should be aimed towards the fact that AI Art collects hundreds of thousands of art pieces to fuel a "non-profit but totally for profit" system they can't opt out of.

Like this:
Someone sneaks into your house and steals a few strands of hair directly off your head. You may feel violated, but no biggie, right?

Then it turns out they're manufacturing pillows stuffed with a blend you and other people's hair. Now that's just gross, but again, there's not really any direct harm to you physically or emotionally. Besides, people are saying the pillows are cheap and just as comfy as a premium pillow, so who cares.

BUT THEN, you learn they've taken DNA of your hair, created vegetative teratomas that constantly grow your hair (let's lampshade the ethics of creating life for profit), and are now intending to produce pillows exclusively with your hair.

Now you're realizing the problem, and you've waited too long to do anything about it. They have basically monetized a piece of you. Worst of all, your existence is no longer necessary for this piece to exist. In a way, your ability to be useful in such a niche scenario has been stripped from you without your permission.