"Hey, anything's art if you do it in a black sweater". - Mr. Wiggles

This said, according to the renown authorities on the matter, it's definitely about the process. :-)

> I don't deny that I might get moved by a piece of AI art, but even so, my first thought goes to what human art was used to generated this specific piece that inspired this emotion.

Yes, exactly, behind AI art there are countless human artists and their experiences. You should not dismiss AI so easily. What it offers you is a new way to see your favourite artists, to interact with their works, to continue dreaming the same dream, and add your own story to their own.

AI art is a deeper way to engage with art than simply viewing. For the first time we can ask questions, we can explore vast landscapes of style and content. Only imagination has similar characteristics - goal directedness, freedom of movement, extreme creativity, one-time-use - imagine and throw away most of your ideas, a space of privacy and freedom - assuming you run your own models, AI art is more private than using the internet.

> I can very well get to define what art means to me.

Never meant to say otherwise.

> Process is actually very easy to infer if the art is made by a human, since the emotions that are being conveyed by the humans behind the screen are displayed directly on screen.

I couldn't disagree more, unless you have some method, some mechanism I know not of you are only guessing. It is good guessing because humans are more alike than not but still only guessing.

Often not even the artist himself knows the process.

I have grown to abhor legislation, if you want to aggress the users of AI tools then do it yourself without the help of the state.

> And this is precisely why AI art will not be the end of human creativity: humans will keep creating, and other people will like watching the passionate work of other humans, not randomly generated garbage.

The problem is going to be if you hollow out the artist ecosystem.

If all low-skill SWE work were to be done by AI, and the only humans in the loop were the ones at the top of their field (The twenty-years-of-experience folks), there would be nobody to replace them after they retire. Because you aren't going to get a lot of new twenty-years-of-experience people, when there are no jobs for zero-to-nineteen-years-of-experience people.

If you're interested in how this has worked out in the physical product space, you can always look at the American rust belt. As it turns out, when you offshore all the low-level, low-margin, low-skill work, you lose a lot of the high-level expertise in the industry.