I think this comment in this thread answers your question or, at least, other questions of a similar sentiment.
Arguing that AI art is bad by pointing out its material flaws is largely unproductive (I'd even argue that it's counterproductive) because those flaws are theoretically surmountable. This post is a great example of that, and it highlights the reason I actually hate the presence of AI-generated work amidst the artistic world. It causes humans to hallucinate errors in normal artwork, and it normalizes this wack idea that perfection exists in art. It pollutes our intake of artwork and makes it exhausting to explore unfamiliar artists. As a personal anecdote, I used to love finding tracks on YouTube with less than 300 views and a weird thumbnail. It used to be an instant click. Now, it always feels like there's an 80% chance that it was soullessly generated almost entirely with AI—and so I click those videos less.
It's not because AI generated music sounds bad, or because AI generated images look bad. Sometimes they look great. But I don't really give a shit that it looks great if there's no human context behind it that I can ponder. AI work removes the value of discussion to me. Fuck that.
I've seen discussion about the idea of "the curtain is fucking blue," as it relates to the crisis of thought-terminating cliches; and the scariest thing to me is that, with AI work, the curtains are actually just fucking blue.
This leads me into a whole rant about how "Death of the Author" is so frequently misappropriated, and how it relates to the role of AI in the art world, but this comment is long enough.
The type of breakfast people in movies would eat one bean sprout from and off they go.
spoiler
Enjoy your day