It's harmless because it doesn't actually harm anyone, but art is beautiful because it is made with hard work. A landscape in nature isn't made by anyone, but it's still beautiful. But a landscape isn't art, because it wasn't designed by us. A painting of a landscape IS art, because the colors were carefully designed to match the artists observations of nature, and that is beautiful. AI is designed by humans, but the work it produces was not made directly by humans. If someone used an AI to recreate the Mona Lisa down to the exact atom of the wood canvas, it still wouldn't be a true piece of art like the original. If a person made a sculpture to resemble Mona Lisa, that would be a testament to the original, and although it is art it shouldn't replace the original. Does that make sense? I don't want artists to replace their own work with using AI as a tool, I want to see works created with their own hands, created by going out into the world and observing it for themselves.
I understand you but I don’t think AI is replacing human art, if anything it is enhancing it! And as you said AI was created by humans and the art it creates is not a single human’s art but the collective artistic hive like human mind that creates it. Not the art of 1 human but the art of humanity. That’s what is amazing about AI art to me, and I believe it is art. To me at least. The concept of art is relative. To me anything that exists through a human perspective can be art. Just like the colours of galaxies, stars, quantum physics, animals, etc. Nothing cancels anything. Art can be A, but it doesn’t mean it can’t also be B, or C, or &, or *648H, etc. I hope that makes sense.
That's what I call character development! Thanks for taking the time to analyze my post, I hope to be a writer some day. I'll try to make my position clear in addition to illustrating my points from now on, but I'm glad you liked my examples. Thanks again for rethinking your position, it takes a lot of courage to investigate your beliefs in order to get stronger!