I know it is months later, but I just stumbled upon your post today.
First, as a photographer, I want to thank you for not using the words "photograph' or 'photography' in your post as I have seen in so many others about AI-generative imagery (and felt compelled to correct—and in one case, being blocked for it, or so he thought).
Second, I actually liked your offerings. While they display the anomalies of AI, they have a compelling quality, lacking the harshness of others I have seen, which would seem to be based on your approach to the base image and prompt techniques used.
(Q: What was the source of your base image?)
Then I wondered why your post generated so little interest. I imagine you have probably asked yourself the same question.
I will admit to dabbling with a couple of these genertive toys to produce a few images for use on a couple of my sites that I couldn't produce on my own. But beyond that, it doesn't hold my interest for any extended period of time. Perhpas because the practice of photography and its toys are more important to me that playing with these toys. I have a lot of time and money invested in learning the tech, craft, and aesthetic of the practice of photography. AI artists can learn a lot from photographers; I'm not sure that works the other way around.
That said, I am intrigued by those who spend a lot of time and effort working with AI imagery. I would like to ask you and anyone reading this:
Why you do this?
What is about this that you find appealing?
Do you have a purpose for doing this?
(I don't want to get too detailed with my questions so as not to "seed" the responses.)
I don't think I have seen anyone (myself included) ask these basic questions. I have seen people criticizing the process as "art." I have seen critiques of the anomalies and the failure to achieve "photo-realistic" results (and wonder why they think they should set that as their goal). I have seen people criticizing the methods employed to create the products (myself included). As I have alluded to above, as a photographer, I have become an activist against the unethical and illegal methods used by these companies to develop their products, and I have a distain for those who should know better calling this "photography" and the end result "photographs."
I do not ask these questions from a postion of anger or derision, but from a genuine wish to understand why this new illustrative tech is so interesting to those who use it. Even (some) serious photographers find it fascinating. I would ask the same questions to anyone interested in other endeavors from any of the arts, to sports, to academic specialities, hobbies, etc.
The intersection of photography and other visual arts with AI and the effectstis will have on established arts and craft technologies, is obviously of personal concern and importance to me.
Again, thank you for an enjoyable post with your very pleasant—and personal—artistry. You are the first "AI-er" I have said that to.