The narrative that the only artists affected by AI are mediocre and derivative and thus deserve what they get, is just propaganda. AI was trained to replicate the distinctive style of artists who "have a name" and "matter," and those artists likely work for companies that are training in-house AIs on their own IPs as we speak.

"struggled to get paid for expensive manual labor?" You seem to have a contempt for most working artists, because most struggle to get paid regardless of talent, not because they're incompetent but because art of any kind has always been a difficult market. And yes, it's hard work, which many people fail to appreciate. You're really illustrating my point more than I think you intend to.

I'm not saying they "deserve" what they get, not any more so than the people who found themselves out of work after weaving or sewing machines were invented, but that's technological progress.

Perhaps we have a very different understanding of what "art that matters" is, certainly I'm not thinking of anyone producing art at volume for a corporate IP. In any event, nothing ever stopped such a corporation from reproducing a certain style with cheaper labor, whether it's human or not. If you were, say, an art director working for a corporation, your job was never to perform much of that manual labor. AI isn't replacing you.