Intrinsic was a poor word choice on my part. My point was that some of the most valued aspects of most art up to this point - the investment of human talent/ski

Intrinsic was a poor word choice on my part. My point was that some of the most valued aspects of most art up to this point - the investment of human talent/skill and the uniqueness brought by the individual - is either not present, or is hard to define when dealing with AI art. > but different in the same way that all the others already differ among themselves I’d argue it’s different in a very different way. The conceptual gap between AI and traditional forms of art is arguably much wider than the gaps/differences that already exist between traditional forms. Using mental models to reason about AI art that liken it to those older forms can be misleading. I do agree that it’s a new form that will carry its own properties and to which people will ascribe different kinds of value. Whether or not that ascribed value is deserved is another question - a question that must be raised because again, someone with artistic skills was still required to create the AI output, they’re just long forgotten by the time the image is generated. If nothing else, the massive unanswered ethical questions raised by the use of models that can only exist because of the content created by traditional artists puts this firmly in its own category.