For those confused by the strong reaction above, OP appears to be an AI "artist" along the same lines as the person this article is about.
I'm not an "Ai 'artist'", scare quotes or no. I have an interest in the tech, and I've used it, but I wouldn't call myself an artist. Not that I think using the tool makes you not an artist, it's just not me.
My reaction is strong because of the dishonesty in the piece itself. I really hate being lied to. The article presents links that appear to be relevant to the story, but are completely unrelated. They talk about things from the Ars Technica interview without mentioning the Ars Techinca interview (from which it seems apparent that while he does use terms like come clean and most of my viewers don't know, he came to Ars of his own accord, and states his intent to start a conversation).
What I can see in this Insta account, is an attempt to start a conversation. I like conversation. I think it's important to discuss the finer points of stuff and really look at what we value and why critically. What this news piece seems to say is: "Hey! Look at this dishonest asshole using AI as if he were A real artist! Screw him! What a no-good lying sack of shit!".
It feels like it's designed to drum up sentiment, not talk about anything, but just to sell the reader on some narrative that "the evil AI army is coming for your art lunch, go get a torch and / or pitchfork".
So, perhaps a little immature of me, but I decided to respond in kind. But like better, by using references and context to elaborate rather than pretend those things don't exist. I may need to grow up a little, but that's what it is.
Compelling stuff.
I'm sorry to report, that's apparently just someone else who likes Harvey Birdman and porn (both of which I will admit to, but I never turned my interest into a productive hobby, I'm afraid). Note the age of the account - it's a touch older than stable diffusion.
That is indeed, a helluva quote.