In order for something to be art it must be made by humans. You can pollute so many other sites with AI trash, no one wants to see it.

Extreme opinions without nuance don't accomplish anything. The universe is full of beauty that humans did not create.

Both are shit.

Right back at you.

I'm not big on AI art, but you sound quite like the people who attacked photography when it first became widely available. We think of those people as reactionary idiots scared of change now.

To a large extent we already have art that isn't "made" by humans. Photographs are a good example. The human points the camera at the subject and pushes a button, the camera actually makes photo. The human may have decided on the framing, the light, the zoom, the stop, what's in it, how to crop it and nowadays with digital images especially how to modify it afterward, but they didn't really "make" it, they modified it to meet their artistic desire.

AI image generation can be used like that. Some of the stuff that's gone viral actually took the person who made it uncounted hours of work massaging prompts to get something to come out that looked like they were hoping for. And often needed tweaking in Photoshop before it was finished. There's not a huge amount of difference to the modern process of creating photos with a digital camera when it's done like that. Sometimes it would have been faster to draw it themselves, but artists that switch from physical to digital drawing often start out drawing a lot slower at first. Over time both will get faster. I consider that art, as I do the photo.

If you want rail about specific uses, such as companies firing all their artists and relying on AI image generation and some clueless intern to produce crappy artwork for their company you'd have a better and defensible stance. Or companies pretending art is produced by humans when it wasn't. (This is a bit problem with news and generative AI, particularly reviews.) Talking about AI generated images using terms such as "pollute" tells others you're not worth listening to, because you have an extremist position and won't listen to what others think.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

I didn't know AI pictures were allowed here... but now that I know it, I like this site much more.
It lacks some of the pictures I love, but I guess I just have to upload them in the future.

That stupid notice of the owner of this place's stance on AI slop is unbelievably embarrassing.

It's a lot less embarrassing than what you just said. Lorentz's statement was more nuanced, accepted the mods not allowing most AI stuff and didn't take an absolutionist stance. You just jumped straight to personal attacks on your first ever forum post, probably because you had nothing useful to say. Classy, and totally not worth listening to.