Do u take AI generated art as Art?

Tricky one, I guess it depends what it's used for and it's acquired value

As an artist working on a children's book, I've watched this conversation unfold. Here are my thoughts: I believe AI art is "soulless" art. Since a human did not create it, and since what's behind it is merely millions of images, I don't think AI art can be considered real art. Furthermore, though it can be said that AI art is "inspired" by human art, I also believe that it is more illustration than art. Therefore, I've deemed AI art to be soulless illustrations, rather than Art. The implications of AI art are detrimental to artists as a whole, with plenty more jobs that will be taken from artists who, say, worked in the illustration or poster design field. Making the already competitive industry a whole lot more competitive.

As long as human creativity is required ,it will be art.Whether they use their paint brush or their laptop is secondary.

Art is meant to be the 'expression or application of human creative skill and imagination'... something generated by AI doesn't really tick that box even though it is inspired by human created art.

The real art is not the thing generated by AI but the generation of AI itself.

IMHO, AI art IS art because it uses the same process. It takes random pre-existing ideas and concepts and recreates them as a variation. All human art uses that identical beginning step.

Does it matter who painted the paint?