[Drakim]

This is exactly what happened when digital tools like Photoshop became mainstream, where you can copy-paste, recolor, adjust, stretch and transform. It didn't obsolete the manual creation of art, but instead enhanced it. It's common for artists to sketch on paper (or tablet) and later digitize and color on their computer, achieving results faster and better than what was possible in the past.

[psd1]

I agree but also don't.

I crave authenticity. I recognise the creativity and talent in digital painting, but it lacks authenticity. I hardly feel I'll like AI art more.

Not all art needs to be high art, of course. I've bought prints of digital paintings and woodblock prints. Nonetheless, /r/ArtPorn today is like going to the cinema and being shown a compilation of TV adverts. AI art is probably not going to improve that.

[Drakim]

I totally get that, but do consider that there were probably people in the past who felt that non-analog art wasn't authentic. That it's not a real piece of art on a real piece of paper or canvas, but a mocking grid of pixels digitized to mimic the authentic but with a jagged plastic aftertaste.

Personally, I love pixel art and think it a very legitimate medium to create art in. I can understand why somebody wants art to be something physical and real, unique and non-digital, but I feel much more strongly that the advent of digital art gave more than it took.

My hopes is that the same will be true for AI art.

[Eisenstein]

A.I. will not create 'art' because art is at its essence an expression of the human condition. However, it will create a lot of what is now commoditized craft that resembles certain kinds of art, like advertising, corporate design, a lot of architecture, and graphic design.