I'm suprised no one talks about this. AI Art isn't Art. AI Poetry isn't Art. And I'm tired of it. I know hacker news isn't the best place to complain about that but still... I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own. Especially not Poetry.
I personally found the contrast with the original “They’re made out of meat” to be really interesting. I don’t care that AI was used during its creation at all.
What happens too often during these discussions is that someone who writes "make me a cool image" gets conflated with someone used ai to fixup a small rock in their natural landscape drawing. (two extreme ends)
One problem though, is that we don't really know how much the supposed human author was involved in the piece. Now that it's becoming hard to judge, people against ai art can proudly change their opinion on on a piece once they learn that it was made by ai. I've come to think this is somewhat respectable, like you see a video of some extraordinary event (before ai) and then you learn that it was fake, just for views or something.
But on top of all this, there are different ways to "consume" art. Artists may think more about who the artist is as a person and what they felt when they made the piece, while non-artists may just enjoy the piece for what it is, detached from the artist. These two perspectives clash a lot.
Why?
(And who are you to dictate what art is and what isn't?)
Then don't. Nobody asked you to. Why do you people feel the need to angrily announce every time you don't read something?
It's not real art unless you used a brush or a pencil for it, and no, "PC Paintbrush for MS-DOS" really doesn't count.
You have no way to know what is written by a human these days. Apart from the super low effort outputs.
No offense but I couldn't give less of a damn what some guy on the internet thinks. If it makes me feel good in artsy-ways, then it is art, and I don't care how it was made.