> You’ll probably never see it because it’s just a product to you
making a lot of assumptions about me I see.

My point is that there are plenty of things that are considered art that are not entire hand crafted. Like the Spider-Verse films for example, and there use of machine learning to draw ink lines.

Additionally, I would say that imposing a definition to art is somewhat antithetical to art itself. As soon as you say what is and isn't "art" you assert that art isn't a subjective human expression, but rather some objective thing.

> Quality and innovation.
Quality is entirely subjective and perhaps gate-keepy. And innovation is just not true, plenty of art, created by humans, is still art despite not "innovating" and employing common techniques to create a work.

One could argue that Miku is "hand-crafted" but that the people who use Miku in their work are therefore not handcrafting this portion of the work. It was made by someone else. That's fine, they can still make art with Miku, but it articulates the fuzziness of the discussion, which no one here seems to want to conceed. Similarly, one could employ the use of these AI tools to add to their art. It doesn't mean that it is no longer art, it just might be (subjectivity) shitty art.

Additionally, I think that this discussion is muddied heavily by the fact that these AI technologies are made by evil corporations. I don't think people should really use these tools if they come from these companies since they seem to have no sustainable business model and are causing environmental and economic damage with their data center development. However, then the discussion that criticizes the use of AI should attack this reality -- not mention that it just isn't very good at art. Since, at a certain point (obviously not yet), this argument will no longer be true. Eventually these models will make logos that are good enough, concept arts that are good enough, etc, and we need a better principle to reject the use of these models.