>Photography still requires artistic intent
I don't think it's that different if you look at basic photography shitters, like >>>/p/. Like people who go out in the streets, shoot awkward sudden portraits of random people while tilting their camera, then make it black and white and add grain to make it more artsy. This or the "I took a picture of a random door" shitters are those on the same level as the AI shitters who make prompts like "Emma Watson ((((((enormous boobs)))))) naked doggystyle by greg rutkowski". And even if you look at the most expensive photographs you'll find that they're artistically utter shite, and yeah there's an element of money laundering but the artistic intent is still pretty minimal. It's another matter if we're talking about studio photography where everything is tightly controlled, but then that's arguably beyond mere photography.
That's a post-hoc raster editor, we'd need something to edit what goes into the AI picture before it gets done, as in "put face here, make eyeballs point there, make skin this shiny". We'd rarely know how to fix a mangled hand in Photoshop keeping in the same style.
Inspiration can work in funny ways, you can draw a blank because you have nothing to start from but then you see something that evokes a whole bunch of concepts. You might see an AI pic and maybe the face will inspire you something, or the shading, the overall colour palette, the background, the fabric or textures, It just takes a spark. Going through /ic/ most of the drawings really lack in inspiration, a lot of it is "I drew something that's just like the cartoons I watch", which might be decent for technique practice, but lacking as art.
Put another way, for most people inspiration from nothing, it's triggered by external stimuli. So your inspiration can come your Japanese cartoons like everybody else, or maybe it can come from something that generates sources of inspiration from whatever you vaguely have in mind