For the last time, the issue with "AI" is not that it exists as a tool, all of the issue that anyone should have is in how the data used to fit is obtained. No one would have any issue if you took the time to draw thousands of images then trained on them and lived off of that, just don't steal data from others, hand-wave as "free use" and carry off into the sunset on data you didn't generate.
The tools behind AI are fine and have honestly existed for decades. If anyone is up against AI because it isn't authentic or something, that's a fools errand really because people, artists themselves and developers, will find them useful. The problem is and always will be how the data you fit on and how you obtained it.
Even the issue you mention, training without consent, won't stop this.
Chances are really very low that this will become illegal and enforceable. It would require some very draconian laws, whilst copyright legislation is low priority in government circles, even more so in these times.
Even if somehow this would be outlawed in the US, nobody cares internationally. Right now, on Amazon you can buy knockoffs of millions of products from China that violate IP/copyright. Nobody cares. Do you think they will care about something as worthless as a digital image? A digital image that can't even be reliably detected as being AI generated?
And there's yet another work-around. Scrape images that don't require consent or make consent part of terms and conditions. Google made Google Photos free for about a decade, and trained it for free on all your stuff.
The tools behind AI are fine and have honestly existed for decades. If anyone is up against AI because it isn't authentic or something, that's a fools errand really because people, artists themselves and developers, will find them useful. The problem is and always will be how the data you fit on and how you obtained it.