Look, I get the appeal of AI art. The tech is impressive, and some of the images are genuinely stunning. But awards are supposed to celebrate human creativity, skill, and intent. AI doesn't have any of that. It's a tool that remixes existing work without understanding what it's doing. If we let AI-generated pieces compete, we're basically judging the prompt-writer's taste, not their artistic ability. That's a totally different skill. And what about all the human artists who spent years developing their craft? They'd be competing against something that can churn out a technically perfect image in seconds. Winning an award means something because a person struggled, made choices, and poured themselves into the work. AI can't do that. Let's keep the awards for the humans who actually made the art.

Here's the thing - a study from MIT found that people actually devalue art when they find out it's AI-generated, even if they loved it before. That tells me something important about what we actually value in art. You keep saying the AI "makes" the painting, but that's like saying a camera takes a photo. The creative choices are all the human's - the lighting, the composition, the subject. AI doesn't decide what's meaningful or beautiful. It's just pattern-matching. I'll give you this - some prompt-writers do have real vision. But that's curation, not creation. We don't give awards to museum curators for the paintings they select, right? Let's keep awards focused on the actual making of art, not just the ordering of it.

[No submission - Time expired]