>I hate the argument that "AI art isn't real art". There are artists who do what are essentially collages, gluing photos or cutouts from magazines or whatever to canvas. This has always been controversial to artists who use traditional tools to paint. This compares nicely to the is-AI-art-art question. I don't like AI art, but I accept it. I don't like it, because, yes, it isn't real art. It isn't real art in the sense that a PM at an advertising firm isn't a real graphic designer. The person using an AI is telling a very talented, but kind of retarded artist what to make, much like a PM tells a graphic artist what to create. I accept it because the PM gets the credit for the final work just the same, sometime more than the graphic designer. When photography became ubiquitous, similar arguments cropped up. Alfred Stieglitz put on one of the first, if not the first, art photography exhibition in the early 1900s, but by then traditional artists were already thinking that the camera killed skilled art. Along with CIA chicanery, this probably had something to do with the rise of modern, non-figurative art like dadaism. That's more of a concern to me than "is AI art art". There are always second-order effects, and there are always unintended consequences. Automation always chips away at traditional skills until the only people who can still remember the Old Ways are geriatrics and autistics. That is, or at least will be, a problem. But it's a battle I've accepted defeat on. I'm not going to convince anybody that this will have a terrible impact so long as they can make a picture of Princess Leia in a Sailor Moon outfit doing a kickflip over a volcano by just... asking a thinking rock for it.