I find it weird that people seem to argue almost exclusively over the economics of generative AI. I'd say around half of these panels are just variations of the same "it promotes economic trends which I find unacceptable" thesis.
My personal opinion on the matter, which is that any art is made meaningful by the person behind it, is basically only touched upon in the last two frames. I mean be honest, why on earth would we need some ugly piece of crap failing at imitating something aesthetically pleasing, when we could have unique styles shaped by personal experience and art that's actually thought over to look coherent in some way even if it may lack that detail that AI is obsessed with for some reason.
As someone who isn't into feet, I've always just assumed it's because uncovered feet are vaugely intimate. As in feet are mostly covered by shoes but when you get to see them uncovered it might just mean the situation has gotten intimate. I mean that's basically the idea behind any societal view which dictates that women should cover any particular part of their body, it's not that muslim people inherently find hair sexy, it's the societal norms which attached an intimate meaning to hair.