1. High prices for art is tax breaks for rich people. As AI art takes off there as did any other type of scammy art, I don't see how it changes life for most visual artists.
2. In that vein wouldn't it be worse if a corporation took your art directly? Wouldn't AI art be better then? I can't name a single corporation nowadays that makes millions of art pieces that anybody's actively invested in. Most AI-generated art has this lucid dream quality to it that I don't see have mainstream appeal.
3. Maybe a simple watermark could mess up the AI. Single pixels mess up image recognition AI for example.
4. Indie gamedev artists are really more concerned, in my experience, with very particular types of art that I've seen no AI replicate well. Tailor-made animations, responding to comments and changes required by the rest of the team. Quick sketches in a style, palette and 'feel' consistent with existing art. Tiling textures in all directions without noticeable repeats. Wrap-around or parallax backgrounds. 3D sculpting or designing objects to very specific and non-standard specifications. A general AI just doesn't handle these things, or when it does it's inconsistent, 'lucid'. Unless that's the game feel you're going for, I don't see AI art having a big impact on most gamedev.
I can imagine digital artists in general having a few issues here and there with AI, but nothing the usual methods don't prevent (annoying/custom/inconsistent watermark, paywall for commercial use). Taxbreak art just grabs onto its next trend, whatever it is. Gamedev artists are often specialized enough that AI-generated art doesn't really impact them -- more likely it helps to have a 'fast concept art' tool. And in the cases where concept art is actually relevant you'd probably want to rely on an actual concept artist to keep its style more consistent and to be tuned to aiding the artists doing the bulk of the work.