"Sad robot noises" 
jokes aside, at the current state with a lack of regulations when it comes to A.I. art and intellectual property, it was the wisest move.
I'm a novelist and I love this idea. I use art for my covers etc.. as well as chapter headings. I create that art, sometimes from the ground up and sometimes using vectors I buy for the base.
I haven't seen any AI generated art being used by other novelists, but I haven't seen all novels on here lol. I've made a few covers and promos for fellow novelists and shown them how to make their own.
Regardless of ability or skill, there is never an excuse for art theft. All I've seen of AI art has been the theft from big and small creators (I know that isn't all AI is but it's all I've seen lately).
I'm overjoyed Tapas is doing this. As long as people know the difference between AI and digital art. I have seen drama happening on sites like Reddit over digital art non-artists declare as "AI." A big Zine just removed a well-known artist for referencing live models for their artwork, which is what every artist does. The Zine judges were all writers who had no clue about art. So I hope anyone making the final decisions knows enough about it before rushing to judgment.
I hope Tapas continues to protect artists and content creators with this updated rule. 
Glad to see Tapas doing this. I don't think I've seen anyone use AI-generated art for a novel cover here, but I see it a lot on another site.
I don't have as much of a problem with AI art used recreationally. I've used Artbreeder and other things like that just to get a feel of how my characters would look in a different style. But I do find the current state of AI art lacking on a purely visual level. It's good enough. You're not going to get any standout character or environmental designs from it. The AI-generated covers I've seen lack personality.
That being said, I do feel a little sympathy for novelists who rely on it for covers. Part of my motivation for honing my art skills is because I can rarely afford commissions. For any writer who's in the same position and doesn't have the artistic skill level to make a a cover work (especially on Tapas where drawn characters on covers are encouraged), I understand why they would turn to AI art.
People do unfortunately judge books by covers. If potential readers think the art/lettering on it looks bad, they're going to assume the writing is the same. I've read some pretty decent stories that I wouldn't have touched if I were just going by the cover. So, even if I think AI is just "good enough," that might be enough to take a potential reader from "This book looks like a child made it, I'm not going to waste my time" to "This book looks decent enough, I'll probably check it out."
It's still refreshing to see Tapas take this stance, seeing the direction other visual art-focused sites have taken. And personally, I think even a "bad" hand-drawn cover is a little more appealing than AI.
yeah I think it's a good move to either make it clear. Not sure why y'all haven't seen the uptick in AI novel covers here, it's absolutely been happening, (maybe because I read more dark fantasy, which tends to cater more to the AI style. Romance covers made in AI would be too spooky haha) so I can understand why there was a need to draw the line in the sand. Especially now there's litigation happening regards that.
I support this, as well. I think one of the things that connects the art community is different artists—be them comickers, writers, or what have you—reaching across the divide, so to speak, and working with one another to make a larger project.
That sounds super pompous. All I mean is, ai generated graphics takes away from community and collaboration. It alienates visual artists from writers and musicians, and vice versa. I have met a lot of great writers though my ability to kinda sorta draw a little. And we grew to appreciate one another. Likewise, I will never be a musician, but I admire and respect those who can craft songs. I don't want to use a machine to generate my own music: I want to connect and feel a connection with other people, and celebrate their art.
I know that's cheesy, but it's part of why I'm glad this has been banned. Communities are getting pushed apart by stuff like this, when we really should be supporting one another. Just because I can't do something, I don't look at that as a negative. I like to find people who can and enjoy what they share. I don't want that sullied with AI generated stuff 
It's a shame that it was needed a couple of sues for Tapas to start working into this direction, even when there was a mass of artist against AI -Artstation is a good example. But, anyway, at least they are now in line.
I know a few fellow writers who have used AI generated art as covers, thumbnails, etc.
One of them has already changed the whole set of their art already, and the rest are probably planning to change soon.
Personally, I don't use AI art because I'm a hobby artist and I've posted my art on platforms like deviantart before. I just create my own covers and recycle the art for the thumbnails, banners, and ads.
Of course, I acknowledge that AI is tens of times better than me at art, and that it is fundamentally better than most artists because it is built off of data from the best artists out there. However, I dislike the idea of my art, or anyone's art being stolen and used to create something.
Yeah, I read mostly darker noir and mystery stuff, and I've seen a whole ton of AI art covers and banners.
Really happy to see Tapas take a strong, decisive stance on this. For some people, "it's really unethical in the current state of AI where you don't know if you might be ripping off thousands of artists without their permission" doesn't seem to be enough so long as it's "not against any rules" and "won't have any repercussions for me personally". 
I do feel a bit bad for people who now need to source a new cover at short notice. I know @Iris-Grimoire put a really good list of resources on the discord for novelists looking for alternative ways to photobash or generate a good looking cover legally. Perhaps we should make a thread with a similar theme here too to help those people out?
A resource thread would be a great idea and honestly was something that had been on my mind since seeing the announcement
I'm so, so happy Tapas took this stance as soon as the AI content in here started to increase. Until there's legal precedent for the copyright issues (and boy I hope those are satisfying, but we'll see that in a few years), it's basically art theft but endorsed by tech fanatics.
Hell, there's evidence actual art thieves are just touching up their stolen art and pretending it's AI, when it's an edit.
I use Pixlr. I use the paid version but the free one is still good quality. I used to have Corel and Adobe, but those programs are ridiculously expensive for Mac. Pixlr is good enough and has an animated feature. I created a how-to for a novelist friend sometime back. It was basic but I could do another if anyone needs it.
I'm glad that Tapas do not allow AI. I'm mostly a hobby artist but I do design my own cover using Canva as I feel my art skills are not at the level to do book cover level work. I totally get why most writers are using AI art; but there are better ways to work around designing book covers.
A resource thread is wonderful for people who don't have the art skill level and need book covers. As writers, I feel we should have support artists as much possible. It probably isn't too long before AI would get towards to writing as well.
Glad to hear. I'm kinda hopping this has to do with them recognizing that it's harmful, rather than the lawsuits... but I know better lol.
This right here. I am glad you started this thread, because rather than leaving people with no solution if they've lower skills in design/art, there's a path to helping people learn and create their own covers. Win/win in my opinion. Wish I'd thought of that!
From these responses I guess a lot of people haven't, in fact, had enough quite yet 
But I will try to restrain myself 
It makes sense to forbid AI content if all the content on this site is supposed to be under copyright (I'd prefer for there to be an option for it not to be, but it's their choice :P)
I'm glad people are offering help to former AI users though, rather than being all 'server you right' or whatever :]
Otherwise, doesn't impact me personally, and tbh I doubt it affected anyone on this forum since everyone seems to be staunchly anti-AI, so I wasn't sure what kind of discussion you were expecting by asking that question