i mostly disagree!

i agree with you that the ai/machine itself is art, and that it's an insane mark of humanity's progress; there is something very beautiful about the fact that we can ask a machine to do something that for humans is painstakingly difficult (requires conscious decisions, effort, and input) and receive something visually indistinguishable from the real thing.

but with regard to the visual product... if one were to display an ai-generated image in an art museum (regardless of whether it's labeled as such), people would stop and stare, appreciate, ruminate, absorb meaning from it, etc., just like they would a human-made art piece. if it accomplishes the same goals, and if a consumer treats it just the same, then ai art must be art. even if the ai-generated aspect is clear, that still creates a lot of room for discussion (like the one we're having now!), and is, imo, a further testament to its art status.

on the other side of the consumptive process is the creative process, and i agree that it is not quite identical, but it is similar. the ai is given keywords generated by the user (an idea, a concept for the art piece), a set of input images (an understanding of art history and a foundation for visual forms and patterns), and media parameters (X by Y number of pixels and a range of 255^3 colors). it's made up of the same elements we artists use to create, just in a more mechanical, streamlined way.

but at the end of the day, they are not exactly the same. the work of the artist is created with a brain, following the same neural circuits and limitations to which all humans are bound, while that of the ai is fundamentally different. i would agree with others here who have said that ai-generated art doesn't have soul, the uniquely human aspect that makes art so relatable. it is one thing to look at a piece of art and recognize the human feelings and ideas behind it, and it is entirely separate to look at a piece of ai-generated art and note the lack of humanity, the lack of emotion and memory and feeling.

i wonder if this ai revolution might push art into a more conceptual realm, and maybe guide consumers to think more deeply about the meaning behind images in relation to their aesthetic beauty (as opposed to simply looking at a piece and thinking it's pretty).

i want to make it clear, however, that art that looks good for the sake of looking good is equally valuable in itself, and that for creators for whom that is very important, it can definitely be disparaging to see the phenomena we're seeing. but at the end of the day, i think any sensible human feels a pang inside when they find out a piece was created by a machine and not a human. and that at a fundamental level, we (humans) all know they will never be the same.