Could it be compared to computer animations in films? Many film lovers hate stunt scenes that aren't done for real. Is Ai something that will become accepted as time passes? Or is it something that's totally beyond what we have seen before as it could have so little human input?

Yeah, as we know many artists use teams of people with different skills to make the art for them, so is Ai any different? Just because it's not human?

I have an AI art critic bot that views the AI art for me. He tells me the majority is pretty wank.

I don't really have one; that was my attempt at a joke.

I shoot a lot of gimpy film photography, and up until a week ago, I didn't use Photoshop's AI features, out of principle for preserving the beauty of the analog medium. Excuse me while I sniff one of my parps for a sec.

Ahh, delicious.

But after removing one shadow and an uncool tourist, leaving only edgy locals in my composition, I liked the final image of my Hong Kong street scene more.

I questioned the ethics of this, but then I realized that no one is going to see this image that thousands of people have already shot, most likely taken a better photo of, and nobody cares what trickery I've used. Everyone will presume it anyway. If I like the final result, well, that's all that matters.

Yes, art is different from photography; it's all crayons and sticky-back plastic. But if someone wants to convey a message, story, or feeling and lacks the skills to pull it off, now they can join in the fun and add to the pile of mediocrity. Who knows where it goes? One day AI might create a masterwork that we all value.

Ai is not art, only as it’s not made by artists but by geeks or not that have a great formation and knowledge in  informatics and softwares.
As I don’t like artworks made with Photoshop 

The rise of AI art can only help people like The Connor Brothers, and for that reason alone, I believe it's a cancer that must be stopped.

AI is extremely boring. For that reason alone, it can never be art.

Making more artists can't be a good thing. You ever had to be in the same room as one? Listen to their stories?

The problem is, "artist" is such a broad term, used to describe all manner of expression. Heck, we even have sandwich artists now. Generally, I think you get to call yourself an artist if others let you get away with it.

It's complicated. For example, I have a very good friend who's a sex worker, and he often refers to himself as an artist. And who am I to argue with someone whose work brings pleasure to thousands and thousands of people? But you wouldn't want to see his work in the Royal Academy.

But, I mean, if I got in a taxi and asked the driver to take me somewhere, gave them some prompts, do I get to call myself a driver?

On the other hand, Banksy and Hirst, both accepted as artists, and rightly so. But would you say they're both taxidermists because they got someone else to stuff some wildlife? I think no. But they are clearly artists because of all the other stuff.

But the question was about the art market. I think the art market will be fine and thriving long after we're all gone.

IMHO you must have been a great inspiration for the early banksy Lroy 😘

Don't blame the technology, blame what people do with it.

AI art is "simultaneously a movement, a philosophy, an aesthetic and a style" formed through "an intricate, divergent, often passionately conflicting barrage of strategies". "It evolved in direct context with the changing social and cultural attitudes of the time, and, as such, it should not be characterized simply as a visual trend".

Don't forget that historically photography had a similar treatment, and yet, years after, photography is now considered as art by some while others are still debating in photography is art. Earlier photographers rejected anything artistic, photography was for them a new technology to show the reality; but at the same time, some artists decided to alter the films/pictures to make art (a very ephemerous art movement called "pictorialism") because there were nothing artistic in photography and wanted to use the technology to make art out of it.
They were heavily criticized ("why trying to reproduce impressionist painted art using a camera?"). Then some photographers started doing arts and showed that photo can be art (details, light, etc.). It is interested to note that many early photographers we call artists are from the pure photography movement.

This sentence defining pictorialism is on point and can be applied - "It evolved in direct context with the changing social and cultural attitudes of the time, and, as such, it should not be characterized simply as a visual trend". One writer has noted that pictorialism was "simultaneously a movement, a philosophy, an aesthetic and a style." Another historian said that pictorialism was formed through "an intricate, divergent, often passionately conflicting barrage of strategies"

The answer is there, AI art should be seen as a whole, an artistical movement characterized by a major innovation/trend (here AI) and his early stage, with its dilemmas, conflicting strategies and divergence of opinions. AI art is "simultaneously a movement, a philosophy, an aesthetic and a style."

May be, just like for photography (or afrofuturism), a clear AI artistic movement will come out and all the current artists trying to imitate art with AI will be considered as having missed the point of what pure AI art.
AI can be art and, after seeing great AI videos, it is definitely an interesting art movement with a lot to offer; it is good, that's something else, but it is definitely here to stay with its own philosophy, ideology

********************
From Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism

"Pictorialism [...] began in response to claims that a photograph was nothing more than a simple record of reality, and transformed into a movement to advance the status of all photography as a true art form." (sounds like definition of AI art)

Photography historian Naomi Rosenblum points out that "the dual character of the medium—its capacity to produce both art and document—[was] demonstrated soon after its discovery ... Nevertheless, a good part of the nineteenth century was spent debating which of these directions was the medium's true function."

These debates reached their peak during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, culminating in the creation of a movement that is usually characterized as a particular style of photography: pictorialism. This style is defined first by a distinctly personal expression that emphasizes photography's ability to create visual beauty rather than simply record facts. However, recently historians have recognized that pictorialism is more than just a visual style. It evolved in direct context with the changing social and cultural attitudes of the time, and, as such, it should not be characterized simply as a visual trend. One writer has noted that pictorialism was "simultaneously a movement, a philosophy, an aesthetic and a style."

Contrary to what some histories of photography portray, pictorialism did not come about as the result of a linear evolution of artistic sensibilities; rather, it was formed through "an intricate, divergent, often passionately conflicting barrage of strategies". While photographers and others debated whether photography could be art, the advent of photography directly affected the roles and livelihoods of many traditional artists. Photography had taken over for one type of art form, but the question of whether photography itself could be artistic had not been resolved.

******
As for David Choe, can wait for his AI porn animation depicting girls being raped, what a great guy! He can then say, it is all fantasy, never happened!

Well AI would say this though, it’s in its own interest. Perhaps ask it why it would not be a good idea at all to use AI for developing art