Few can handle the truth. The signal-to-noise ratio is bad when AI art is spammed. Prompts are saved and can easily be repeated; soon there is no need for prompters at all.

I am interested in what people can create with their minds and effort. An artwork becomes interesting to me if there is a mind, a person in there. Someone wrestled with design decisions and made an effort to put their own experiences and aesthetic vision into the work. That's something I can learn from or aspire to. I can't learn anything from an AI output.

AI art can be fine for specific purposes where a writer have a low budget and need a quick illistration for an article. Or where you need quantity at low price. If people are having fun with AI tools that's great. But the real fun starts when they take control over their own creativity and explore what they can accomplish if they push their comfort zone. This requires work and competence.

Then there's the matter of dependence on centralized tools that require enormous computing power. That's not a place where I would like to be if I were a content creator.

Then there is the original artwork problem. If you generate something with an AI, the algorithm takes all those details from existing human artworks, artists who had to put in their unique visions and work to accomplish that. That's not your voice. Why would I want to use the voice of others? That's appropriation of someone elses identity. Similar to sending someonr a thoughtful letter that you didn't write yourself. Those were not your thoughts. Better if people can attempt developing their own voice. At least that's interesting.