My primary objection to generative AI art as it stands today is that it superficially looks fine but contains frequent errors on close examination. It is simply of low quality, the "pink slime" of the art world, and I don't want my time wasted by people trying to pass off low quality artwork as some sort of worthy creative output.

Eliminate that problem and then maybe the other objections start coming into play.

It's not the tools or use of them. As with any of the issues arising in AI discussions in a multitude of spheres - it's the scale. It's not the same as previous jumps in creative technologies because of the massive scale of impact. Scale of erasure of value of creative skill. Scale of 'bad' actors abusing the tools taking away space for creatives. Scale of impact to the general endeavour of creative expression. And for what? Removing a huge chunk of human creative expression, for what?

The negativity is about ai being actually shit.

this was a professional artist using ai for a christmas mural.

https://www.londoncentric.media/p/ai-artwork-london-kingston...

I went to see the awful charade claiming to be art, I stood on Kingston bridge and looked upon that pile of shit art work.

check out the photo of the dog paddling in the water with a fucking chickens beak. Hilarious!!

Human heads not even joined to human bodies.

This is real ai