You know man - I did define what is lacking in the images: "Art is not about the mechanistic elements which are being combined, mixed, matched and presented here. The images can be seen as satisfactory "placeholders" but they are not illustrations. They do not depict any particular story moment. Nor are they of a nature that would be suitable for a cover of an e-book, audiobook, or print book."

You apparently feel that duplicating existing Photoshop filters or other neural filters, which have existed for YEARS, is something original. It's not. I work with founders all the time. The ones that are going to achieve success continuously revise their vision. They do not ask people to repeat things that they already said. I specificially listed elements lacking in the images. These elements are part of useful or interesting art.

Is ANY "image" "art"? Sure. But Watson hasn't cured cancer yet, has he?