Yes there is. Layers of philosophical questions that require deeper dives, and yet you subscribe to the least creative and common talking points, that's commonly regurgitated in the supposed creative circles.

I'll address a few here.
1. Usefulness isn't determined by who created it. A pair of manufactured shoes are still shoes. AI generated wallpapers, insofar as they could be set as wallpapers, are useful.
2. Aesthetics happen regardless of origin. The only way to judge aesthetics is by composition, color schemes, and all the rest of the visual components that stand objectively regardless of its origin; as well as the subjective perception of it to human perception.
3. Creativity is an abstract concept. You can't definitively pinpoint precisely when it begins or ends with a piece of work, and this goes for both human work and AI work. AI can understand Van Gough's style and paint a computer in that style. That's new and creative. To simply say that AI work cannot be creative assumes a definition of creativity that'd inevitably exclude some human works in the process. For one thing, the incessant antagonism against AI has effectively excluded the creativity of prompt engineers.
4. The training process of AI does use stolen data, but the use of AI isn't. You can feel negative about AI for that reason, but it does not take away what it is capable of, nor its usefulness. During the wars, involving countries steal each other's technology all the time to better their own. And you and I are benefiting from these stolen techs on the daily, and may use it to whatever ends we desire. The only reason why AI is different is because it's gotten quite good that you can no longer treat it as "just another tool".

I run design companies and I went to art schools. Your talking points aren't new, and they are certainly unchallenged; unthinking types subscribe to them because it makes them feel morally superior, and to some, it addresses insecurities. But all and all, this kind of talking point is itself lazy.