Could you use art in the public domain, or creative commons art? That way, you don't have to step into that potentially immoral area that could have people turning away from your creations.
Without getting into a back-and-forth on this topic, the fact that A.I. (or, at least, large language models) are here is a reality. I know most folks (myself included) are desparately holding onto the way of life we all are used to; however, to state that it is immoral to use such technology for an item that is a passion project never to be sold is a bit extreme.
I am a professor of mathematics, and I see terrible and ingenius uses of technologies such as ChatGPT quite often. The lazy student who is just trying to pass a class often uses such software (and apps like PhotoMath) to give a false sense of knowledge. These students inevitably fail due to their ignorance and lack of knowledge. The creative student uses it to augment their learning (creating sample quizzes, exams, homework, etc.) or to engage with alternative learning methods. The knowledge-base used by such software is immense and "borrows" from tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of authors and mathematicians throughout history. Are either of these approaches "immoral" despite using the knowledge-base of many authors to supplement or augment their work? I would argue no.
Many folks who argue that using "A.I." to generate content (images in this case) is immoral often forget or ignore the uncountable instances in their life when they have leaned heavily on someone else's work (whether that be written, artwork, etc.) without citation. Think about A5E - the
vast majority of the content is "borrowed" from the works of many other authors (in addition to WotC); however, we rejoice at the modifications set forth by these creators despite the
fact that they are doing the analogue of what Dall-E does digitally - taking an original work and modifying to meet specialized needs.
I wholeheatedly agree that
copying an artist's work and using it in content you are selling or claiming it as your own is
completely immoral; however, any artist will admit that their style is influenced and built on the backs of generations of artists. None of these modern artists are called immoral for generating artwork based on their influences. The difference, I think, is "brush to canvas." We excuse the artist who emulates their master or influences because the artist is putting "effort" into their creation; however, we villainize the citizen who admires a certain style but who does not have the artistic fluency to make such an emulation.
I don't know what the future holds, but I hope that there are people (like yourself) who are passionate enough about the orignality of human-created art to keep the artistic community afloat for generations. When movies came out, I am
certain that stage actors had a similar crisis and, while not as popular as it was back then, stage craft is still alive today.