While I was there I saw someone talking about how they thought AI art was acceptable if someone doesn't have the spare time or money to dedicate time to getting good at art so that they can make a game people won't reject because the art is ugly

I'm sorry to bring that discussion here, but it's been sticking in my mind. I never really understood that argument, because pretty much all the artists I know work full time for minimum wage. And I don't think people care that much about a game's art if the game itself is good (big reason low-poly and simplistic pixelart are so common in the indie space). On top of that, if you have the time to learn to code and to use a game engine, you probably also have time to practice art.

I think a lot of the interest in AI art comes down to the want for art but a disinterest in the process of making art. For me, finding that initial spark is what got me on the path to drawing more often. It's a lengthy process and it takes a while before the fruits of your labor become evident, and I think that's what turns people off. But if you just practice occasionally, maybe sit down for 30 minutes a couple times a week and doodle some guys, you'll notice a huge improvement in a year.

That said, I'm not entirely against AI art. I think it can be somewhat useful for things like D&D campaigns, where you need detailed backgrounds or character portraits on the fly, or for memes (that doctor mario one comes to mind lol). But I think a lot of people use it as a crutch and as an excuse to remain apathetic about their art skills.