"Generative AI is art. It’s irredeemably shit art; end of conversation."

I think most people cannot destinguish between "genuine" creativity and an artificial almalgamation of training data and human provided context. For one, I do not know what already exsists. Some work created by AI may be an obvious rip off of the style of a particular artist, but I wouldnt know. To me it might look awesome and fresh.

I think many of the more human centric thinkers will be disappointed at how many people just wont care.

Further I'd argue we KNOW people don't care if you look at the music industry.

Pop music is often composed by dozens of people who specialize in a thin sliver of the track - lyrics, vocals, drums, &c. - and then it's given a pretty face and makes the charts. That's really no different than something like Suno.

I think AI is forcing people who thought that THEIR thing was too nuanced or too complex to be replaced by technology to reckon with what makes them special.

The question is how subtle AI can be. I feel like art sometimes seems to communicate A, and the artist intended to communicate A and perhaps some B, but clearly, it also hints at another C (and maybe also D, E, ..), which was not intended by the artist or recognised by many viewers, while to some people it's clearly there. Now where did that come from?

And can or will AI create it?

most people are just utilitarian and do not care for "art" (in the high art sense).

AI is perfect for that. It reveal, perhaps to the dismay of those who revel in high art, that it might be an illusion that art has genuine creativity, if most people find ai to produce acceptable output.

People have been having this debate with popular art forever. Some people do not even believe in taste, and that everyone's artistic opinions have equal merit.