Go slurp your slop somewhere else.
And since you surely feel so superior trying to shoot down people calling you out, here's a more detailed critique from someone who actually tried using some AI art generation for personal purposes as well as works with AI in my place of employment:
On the personal preference side - AI art is uninspired and in 99.9% of cases ends up all looking more or less the same across every use of it. Sure, one woman is going to be a brunette another a blonde, but they all look the same. Skin, eyes, expression - it all ends up looking fake and plastic-y. The quality is also questionable, with a lot of art out there having major graphical or anatomical mistakes (or needing an excessive amount of re-prompting to fix them nullifying any time/effort saving). Not only that, but photorealism is pretty much the only thing AI can do decently if at all, and that is not the be all and end all of graphic design. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples across visual media showing that good art direction and stylization can be a thousand times more effective and pleasant to engage with than 4k HD ultra-realistic ray-traced images.
But more fundamentally, on the ethics side: the tools you mention have been licensed, and the people contributing to them were either compensated or decided to make them available for free by their own choice. AI models on the other hand, are swallowing training data from everywhere with no questions asked, no credits, no compensation and no oversight or way to protect or take back data that is found to be stolen. When you're using an asset pack, someone chose to make it available for you to use. When you're using AI generation, there are dozens if not hundreds of artists who either didn't want or don't even know that their work was used to train it. It's no different than just finding pictures you like online and using them, AI just gives you the legal ambiguity for people whose work was stolen to not be able to tell you to stop or call you out on it. Legal ambiguity, by the way, that is exploited by millionaires and corporations directly benefiting from having their services used in place of artists that they used to provide it.
And before you say that plenty of other things in our lives is built on the backbone of unethical or "icky" practices - I absolutely agree. But contrary to popular belief, it is absolutely valid to call this shit out regardless if you're engaging with some other "injustice". Sure, I'm not 100% that the smartphone I have doesn't have some material or component made in a sweatshop somewhere, but you won't catch me dead or dying using an apple product and I steer clear from companies that are known for violating ethics or human rights when possible. At the same time, those things have already happened and changing them is hard - especially for an individual: I'll happily engage with some call for change, but it's honestly delusional to think that me not buying the product that millions of people do changes anything. AI on the other hand is still evolving, as is the legal and ethical environment around it. So the widespread boycott of AI art is more likely to have an appreciable effect on how companies create or use AI tools as well as what legislation is going to eventually be put in place regarding it.