[galaxyLogic]

> The time/effort to produce art has effectively become zero.

But not so the effort needed to produce "unique art".

When everybody can push a button to produce "art" then how do you make the results of your button-pushing unique?

The value of art is in its uniqueness, and originality.

Using AI to generate art based on input training models is not that different from photography. Each generated art-piece is like a photograph taken from different viewpoint. And when everybody can use the same programs to generate their "art" the results are bound to be more or less non-unique, non-original.

The scary part for artists may be that now programmers can create new original generated works of art. You can be an artist without knowing how to draw.

Then again we could have a conventional artist with a unique style who would train an AI model to only generate versions of their existing paintings. Laws may need to be adapted to make it illegal to generate art based on someone else's existing art. Lawsuits will follow.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

The effort required to produce 1 particular "bored ape" or any of their many many knock-offs tended to zero. They were technically unique, sure, both by url and by content. But also mass-produced, low-effort, cookie-cutter variations, cheap and ugly. As to the last, "ugly" - without getting into "But is it art?" - if it is; it's really bad art.