It's semantics, but I take your point. I'm trying to give a new definition of art that you disagree with, and by that definition nature would be beautiful but not art. I could be wrong.

I agree that AI will create breath-taking images, though I'm not sure how far that will go. Would we care about the David if it was made by a robot? Would we appreciate Tender is the Night if Fitzgerald wasn't giving his human perspective? Personally, I wouldn't; not for more than a moment.

On the last point: I would prefer to pay artists creating beautiful works by hand instead of via machine. So it does matter from my perspective. I would like to know who is who.