99% of output from cameras is unmitigated low-effort garbage, yet people still hang 1% of photographs in art museums and on their walls.

There's an obsession here with replying with half baked analogies that I really don't see the point of. Is this an attempt at a thought-terminating-cliché? 1. People mostly hang their own photos. 2. People mostly go to museums because they expect a certain level of quality (i.e. they're offloading the curation to... curators) 3. Photography is it's own medium, generative ai is a "tool". Apple to oranges comparison.

There's nothing about the analogy that works, what is your point here?