You’re shifting your point now, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue for. Regardless, it’s both clearly false that art never involved skill and that there aren’t highly skilled artists today. It’s also clear that many artists, certainly every artist I’ve ever met, see self-improvement as a core feature of their life work. So I’m not really sure where you’re getting these ideas from. I know a bit about your background. You attended school in a place where the primary ambition was to get a job at a FANG company and accrue wealth. Is that where your ideas about art were formed?
Sorry, your idea of my background is incorrect. I also studied art history in college along with CS so you don't really know anything about me (or rather, maybe the college I went had CS people want to go to FAANG but that wasn't everyone's or mine and my art history clasmates did not have such an ambition anyway). Regardless my point was that art may have had technical skill but technical skill alone is not sufficient to create good art. There have been many periods in history where art technically has so-called regressed at least by the standards of technical skill maximalists which you see online these days, but again art was never about technical skill primarily. So fret not, regardless of how well a bot paints a picture it doesn't mean your or my art is invalid or pointless although I can understand your existential crisis.