[noirbot]

I feel like OP is almost claiming the opposite. Art isn't clearly defined - there's no "correct art". Therefore whether you prefer art generated by an AI to art generated by a human artist is, within some margin in a blind test, random.

If I have a human and an AI go illustrate a manual for assembling my new sofa, or produce the advertising materials for the grand opening of a local restaurant, it's much easier for the AI to clearly produce an incorrect illustration in a way a human generally wouldn't.

[SyzygistSix]

Most of the "art" created by AI is on the level of assembling a sofa. And sure, lots of people have poor taste and criteria for understanding art. If nothing is being communicated, there is no art, in my opinion. Until AI is conscious, that will continue to be the case.

[noirbot]

Sure, but if you see a piece of art with no context for its creation, you have no way to know what the artist intended to communicate or if they intended to communicate anything at all, or if there was even a human artist involved. I'm aware that Mondrian was a real human who made art, but if you told me Mondrian was an AI, would that make my enjoyment of their work less valid?

In short, I mostly agree that good art is communicative, but also that some of that is because of the context where someone shows you something and tells you it's communicative and maybe what it's intended to communicate. There's plenty of famous works of art that don't look that different than programmatically generated NFT works, let alone things Stable Diffusion does.

People are really good at generating meaning and patterns from actually literally nothing. See conspiracy theories and the gambler's fallacy. If you know it came from an AI that intends nothing, it's easy to see the seams that tell you it's all pieces of meaningless nothing. If you're told that it's from some artist with a long history and passion for expressing some message, it's easy to read communication into anything.