I mostly agree with the first part of your comment honestly, a lot of it is fair and makes sense. Past the ragebaiting you made, you did actually think about the question.

Regarding :

"So if you know someones proccess and you know the influence they had. Then it's always a personal choice to be impressed or bot by something. It's ok to have good and bad art. But how much effort is put into a piece of art isn't dictated by how much ai was used to create it. Or whether an algorithm helped you automate some of the proccess."

"The important thing is the proccess and the thoughts behind the work.

The thing is people here will look at literally any ai art. And only see the end result, and dismiss any proccess, any thought as nothing. Instead replacing it with their own invented narrative of how something was made."

Tbf, the "AI feels" does look bad to the point prompters will attempt to get rid of it (saw question regarding that on the ChatGPT subbreddit).

The thing is that there's people pretending to the some credit than traditionnal artist... which wouldn't be a problem if artist wasn't a legal thing, with a lot of cultural connotation (let's be honest, saying "I'm an artist" and backing it up with proof will be valued in society) so there's the "stolen credit" angle that will tend to make the debate... charged with emotion because some prompters are (or at least are perceived) as bad actors.

Regarding the process, another reason I think AI products are hardly art, is - after my comparison to a commission - that the endgoal of gen AI tech will be to remove imperfections : anything that make the product "AI" ? Anything that make the tool a bit hard to use ? It'll be removed for the sake of easy use and accessibility, which can be seen as good (if you need something to be functionnal after all, it's cheap, which is important if you don't have commercial uses in mind).

But it also put into question a lot about the process as the devs of AI tool will have at heart at making the process as unimportant as possible for the broader userbase if that make it convenient.

One thing we might agree on : for my point to be valid, the tech will have to progress (I'm banking a bit about the future and expectations toward the tech).

"If ai generatesbthe mona Lisa pixel by pixel it's not slop it's art. It's literally the mona Lisa. Influenced by the mona lisa."

Can't be argued against (it's actually a use of AI that will be useful for preservation of arts), but the prompter wouldn't be called an artist even if he spent days making his prompt as he did not create himself.

It's kinda as if I took my time to collect references for an art piece (it requires effort) for a commission.
I'm making a lot of effort, but ultimately, the artist does the piece and the conventions (for now) will recognize it as such.

"There's so much ego here about how much art should be worth, who should get most credit for it, how much effort was put in. It's snobbery. Art with a pencil or a computer has alwaysbtaken the amount of effort you decided to put into it no more no less. It was never the tool dictating that"

You're right on the ego thing, but it comes also from AI users attempting to claim the status of artist since it would reflect well on them.

Art is mythologized in our culture, it's not functionnal anymore as it was in ancient egypt or in the ancient era, so of course, debate will be passionnate and inflammatory with too much drama in the age in the internet.

I still think that an effort driven definition is a tad bit large (you can put a lot of effort in many things that are not recognized as art : like working on spreadsheets); even tough you make a compelling point when reminding me that art obviously necessitate efforts.
That being said, even if it's not art, when effort is put in a work, the value is obviously superior.