Raw LLM Responses

Out of genuine curiosity, (not defense for, please don't put me on blast), what is the perspective that these 'tools' have a place in artistic workflows? Final image propagation especially in the commercial environment is definitely harmful as has been well defined in this argument - but is there a conversation to be had about adapting elements of this software into commercial and educational workflows? Similar to thumbnailing, sketching, or the generation of ideas, is this the adaption to the technology that should be taken into consideration? Some of this was displayed (albeit poorly) in the minor image adjustments made in photoshop that could have just been done in AI with the Super-Girl piece. I am curious if there is a middle ground for the artist who is still pushing their artistic development, not replacing it, where these tools do inspire or push the work further? I guess I think about it similarly to a whole team of artists that work on a single video game character. Is it ethical then, if we call it a shared journey that created the final development/output of a piece of art? Is there value to be found that? Of course the tricky part is creating the self imposed line, maintaining transparency of processes, etc. I feel like in a lot of arguments I see online, if the artistic process is not understood, there is a "gap" where people think this is naturally occurring. They are "creating" these images, but lack the understanding that the ideation, even visually represented in a "polished state" is one step in the process. As artists who are looking to push our skills and our craft/stay relevant, is there/should there be a positive conversation about that implementation of generative software into our workflows where the path can be done ethically as mentioned above?