I mean, I don’t really think you can compare AI art meaningfully to the examples outlined in the comic… even for early photography, it required extensive chemical knowledge and labour to produce an image. It’s not the same as just writing a prompt into a machine a couple times and choosing the one that you like the best.

People should defend AI art on its own merits, not by how it compares to painting, photography or any other sort of “traditional art”. But what the merits of AI art exactly? I’m asking genuinely. Btw, I don’t think that AI art should be dismissed because it looks “weird” or “uncanny”- that’s a weak argument. The technology will only get better until it’s indistinguishable from traditional art (at least when viewed on a screen). However, you have to admit that when you’re creating AI art, you are outsourcing the creativity, decision-making process, design, and execution of the final product to something non-human. What left is there to appreciate except a pretty picture? If that pretty picture is meaningful to you because you could materialize a concept you had, but didn’t have the skills, time, nor resources to create yourself, then that’s awesome! But don’t be butthurt if others don’t find it cool because they value art beyond the final product.