I suppose this is a question of what is art. There have been numerous attempts at defining it and there are a few schools of thought. Many of those focus on the

I suppose this is a question of what is art. There have been numerous attempts at defining it and there are a few schools of thought. Many of those focus on the artist and what part of the artist, what part of their being, was put into the artwork and what they were trying to convey. This does not exist in AI generated content and, I suppose, this is what is hurting people in the art business: there is no individual being behind this, so it's like it's soul-less. On the other hand, there are plenty of people, including me, who are not really affected by what artist created what and why. We care more about whether the art touches you, conveys a thought, a feeling, leaves you changed. Such art can be a joining of previous arts and therefore can be generated by AI or produced by an "amateur", who only copies others' artstyles. I would still consider it art. This AI revolution on the artistic fields will no doubt leave many authors scrambling for work because AI will produce better results faster. Originality and more personal notes will save a few, so I doubt that the most prolific and well known auteurs are in danger, but many many will not be so lucky. Just like in industrial revolution in the past.