There’s more to art than the mere appeal of an image to random people. Some great art is disturbing, but it is emotionally resonant. No doubt some of these AI images are quite neat to look at, but they’re basically assemblages, high tech collages. It’s a futurist parlor trick.
Philosophically art requires consciousness and a conscious will to express something. These AIs aren’t conscious and don’t make art.
Frankly humans and animals generated by these things look like blurry trash or are wrong on details in a way a human wouldn’t be, even intentionally. I’ve yet to see examples that don’t look kind of shitty.
There are plenty examples on the DALL-E subreddit that put the majority of Deviant Art artists to shame.
The best looking ones in general feel like banksy painting a character into a flea market painting, collage.
Again, this shit isn't art it's images with mashed together elements built by a system that has no sense of what it's doing. It's cool and all, but at best it's a pale imitation of a thing.
I value art because it communicates something from an actual human being, like an exchanging between consciousnesses. When I can derive the choices of an author or photographer or any other class of artist, I find a mutual perspective that, at the root of it, makes me feel understanding and understood.
This article (posted here a few days ago) has a great argument on why AI art isn’t art:
My point still holds that anything vaguely representational looks kind of bad and has an uncanny quality. It’s clear that the trick is a kind of collage in most of the images I’ve seen.