So... I've been messing with generative art. My overall stance on it hasn't changed. If anything, it's kind of confirmed some of my initial thoughts / opinions.

TLDR: It's great for drafting / concepts, but fails at specifics / 1:1. There will always be a demand for those. Also... there will always be cursed images.

Artists and their jobs are safe
I'm going to be frank... the ability to type in words, and get an approximation of a picture is nothing short of amazing. That said, it flounders HARD when dealing with specifics. Before you say "You just need to use the right model." ... therein lies a problem. Which model do you suggest would get the results I'm seeking? If your response is to figure it out... then congrats, you don't either don't know, or do but refuse to say for some reason.

Its limited by its very nature
Computers are literal things. They will attempt to do whatever you tell them, even if they don't know what it is, or aren't physically capable of doing it. Nothing changes an AI is still running on a computer. This rigidity has lead to some of the more hilarious cursed images. (Harvesting Mountain Dew, Salmon in a river, and Futa Girl with a horse cock come to mind).

But what about "You just need to add tweak the prompts / weights"... NO! The ability to increase granularity does not rectify the initial problem. Furthermore... an actual artist doesn't consider word order.

AI generated art isn't copyrightable
"A work of art created by artificial intelligence, without any human input cannot be copyrighted under US Law". This doesn't mean it can't be sold (It can... much to my chagrin), however, you can't get a monopoly on it.

There is no such thing as an AI artist
Consider the following: You provide an artist information on what to draw. The artist creates an image based on that information. Can you then claim that you made that image? Now... same question, but replace "Artist" with "AI". Does your response change?
If you can claim you made an AI image, then you also have to claim you made any image you asked an artist to draw for you. To claim credit for something you didn't initially make is basically Art Theft, so why does "An AI did it" absolve that?

Training an AI using artist created images isn't theft
Theft implies a loss of property, or claiming you did something that you didn't. That said, I'd agree it's closer to tracing, or VERY HEAVY referencing, which are already frowned on to begin with. Did you reference other artists when you were learning? If so, was that stealing from them? Again, why does "AI" flip the claim?

Sites have the right to allow / disallow AI art
Though publicly accessible, places like FA are still privately run, and are allowed to dictate what is / isn't allowed on them. Don't like the rules? Tough. Go post that stuff someplace else.