The cost is just money in this case. It doesn’t use rare or unethically sourced materials (at least if you’re not a vegan), it advances the biological sciences as a whole and it’s something to do for bio grads that might generate a lot of value for society in the future.
The ability and willingness to generate images in a style associated with a person, without consent, is a threat to that persons job security and shows a lack of value for them as a human. As if their creative expression is worth nothing but as a commodity to be consumed.
You can’t own an art style. Copyright only extends to discrete works and characters. If I pay a street artist to draw a portrait of me in the style of Picasso, I’m not devaluing Picasso as a person.
It sucked for candle makers when electric lights were adopted. It sucked for farriers and stable hands and saddle makers when cars became affordable for the average person. Such is the cost of progress.
This is true in US law but it should probably be noted that a lot of the “misconceptions” you’re outlining in OP’s comment are things that are legal in other jurisdictions
Artists don’t own their styles, so it’s interesting to see them fight to protect them.
The only thing that makes anything valuable is that someone wants it, or at least wants it to exist. Nothing has intrinsic value because value itself is a human construction. This necessarily includes art.
The same thing except you then have to pay for the disk, distribution and worry about stock and so on.