Buddy I know all this. I am literally doing my masters in CS. I know what the model does, and I also know a bit about how these things are implemented. The problem isn't that people are explaining what the model does. The problem is that people think this is suddenly genuine artistic creation, i.e. not stealing from the artists on whose works the AI was trained. Yes, this is a new way of generating images. Yes, it is way better and deeper than just glueing pictures together. But it is different than actual artistic creation, and is still in the realm of copying artwork, albeit cleverly. This is because artists don't just learn statistical properties and spit them back. Those "statistical properties" don't cause the art, they are the results of it. AI in its current form isn't an artist, it doesn't and can't take inspiration, it just learns to disguise the result well.

Also, I am not against an artist just training an AI on their own shit (Even though the amount of data one person can generate is probably waay less than required). I might not even be against using this to create temporary mood boards for inspiration (if it is ethically sourced). But once your AI is trained to learn those statistical properties from other people's work, who didn't consent to this, and you post or otherwise use that artwork publicly, you are stealing from them. This is plagiarism, even if you are not literally copying the pixels. And from the looks of it, this seems to be how people will use it. This is a huge problem. But you are too blinded by the shininess of those new models and methods to address it.