[EnigmaFlare]

It's silly that there's a stigma attached to AI generated images in cases where it's perfectly reasonable to do. People seem to appreciate things more for the fact that they were created by spending time out of another human's life more than what it actually is.

[layer8]

It would be silly if they were indistinguishable from human-created images, but they aren't, exhibiting the typical AI artifacts and weirdness, and thereby signal a lack of care/caring.

[EnigmaFlare]

"lack of care" - that's the part about spending time out of another human's life. It's not the poor quality that's the problem but the lack of human effort. Oil paintings are full of visible brush strokes which are an artifact but people love them. For most applications of art - advertising, background decorations, news article pictures, etc. there really is no need to show that humans spent effort on it.

The human effort idea is even a bit morally objectionable. You can feel that you're worth more than others because more of the lives of others were consumed to create your possessions. It's a zero sum game where poor people can never afford high-care art because their time is worth less than the artist's.

[__loam]

It's built on theft and it's a negative quality signal usually.