But these aren't artists and this isn't art. This is fast food. This is content for articles and technology for startups to become the middelman for yet another thing.
There will be art coming from these tools at some point but right now it's creatively bankrupt illustrations driven by curiousity and lots of creatively bankrupt people.
Yet. As "real" artists start using these generations to leapfrog their projects, at some point, how is this different from someone studying a style and producing something in that style with that addition of actual "art?"
It's not any different if there's true craft to it. The person in this article and many of the examples are who I'm referencing as not an artist or making art. I would imagine the person that wrote the article doesn't call himself an artist either.
I'm not arguing that the tools can't be used to create art and I'm not trying to say "real" artists don't use these. What I'm trying to say is the images I've mostly seen look like illustrations and content machines.
Personally, these tools are incredible and are almost magic in a sense.
Edit: To put it another way a writer can still write if his keyboard stops working, a carpenter can still build if his saw breaks, an illustrator can still draw if their tablet dies.
That's like expecting a chef to take inspiration from a fast food menu. It might happen but it's more likely that the chef already knows what makes fast food taste good and can develop a new menu based on their fundamental knowledge.
The fundamental knowledge they gained by looking at thousands upon thousands of previous bits of information; and, after today, that collection of insights is going to include auto-generated artwork, as well.
There will be art coming from these tools at some point but right now it's creatively bankrupt illustrations driven by curiousity and lots of creatively bankrupt people.