[moron4hire]

This sounds dangerously close to a No True Scotsman argument. Any example one could provide, you've teed it up nicely to claim that no, you didn't mean that one, obviously, because you could tell. No, it's some other thing that you haven't found yet. That's the passing-AI.

[runarberg]

I think it is worse then a No True Scotsman. I think your parent actually performed a category mistake here. Survivorship bias does not apply here. Whether or not I notice or even unknowingly enjoy AI generated content is not in the same category as how much I notice or enjoy CGI.

The difference is in the authorship. Actual work and skill goes into CGI, and people generally notice bad CGI, and it generally affects how you judge the art. Sometimes CGI is actually part of the art and you are supposed to notice it, and it is still good (think how Cher use Autotune in Do You Believe). There is no such equivalence with AI.

To further elaborate. Bad CGI is often (but not always) used as a cost-cutting means. Directors (or producers encourage directors to) use it when they want to save money on practical effects or even cover up mistakes that happened during shooting and want to avoid an expensive re-shoot. This can work OK if used sparingly and carefully, however if this is done a lot and without the needed care, you will notice it, and you will judge the work from it. AI content is kind of like that, except that is kind of all what AI is. The other couldn’t be bothered to do the work and just prompted an AI to do it for them.

To summarize: AI is not like CGI in general, it is much closer to a strict subset of CGI which only includes bad CGI.