To quote, uh, myself:

Are the band Everything Everything not artists because the lyrics to Software Greatman are partially made with gen-AI?

Most of it you see is stupid slop because of the massive hype behind it driven by corporations who want to see line go up, but there are some good art pieces made with gen-AI. With those there is usually also significantly more creative process involved and not just "enter prompt, get output, post online" like so many people seem to imply, too.

(emphasis mine. lol)

Let's take "prompts" out of the equation. Let's say someone takes some images, corrupts them, and presents them on their instagram page or whatever. Is that art? Surely it is, this is a popular art form called glitch art.

What if the original images are downloaded from the internet and are not their own? Is that art?
What if the computer picks out images from the internet and the person only corrupts and uploads some of what they are presented by the computer? Is that art?
What if the computer picks out and corrupts the images, and the person only decides which to upload, i.e. decides to present them as art? Are the uploaded images art?

If they are, I agree.
If they are not, at which point of these does it stop being art?

What if the source images are originally AI-generated, either by the same person with no prompt, just as a random image generator, or by someone else? Are the final images still art?

If they are, where do you think the limit is, how directly can AI be involved in something for it to still be art?
If they are not, where is the difference between someone taking essentially automatically processed pictures from the internet and curating them, and someone taking algorithmically generated images, neither of which they have direct influence over, in your opinion, that makes one of them art and the other not, despite the process of the glitch art creator being the same?