It's not like we haven't always had fake art, it's just dirt cheap fake art, now.
Things computers create have a value approaching zero because you know that they can produce a gazillion more, at nearly zero cost.
Throw-away art.
Discussion
What if said "throw-away art" inspires emotion/wonder or provides something interesting and cool to look at, is it still worthless at that point? Setting aside any capitalist style views, if we only think of art as a purely subjective experience that each person has in their own unique way, then why claim AI art is throw-away?
Because it can be so easily produced, that there's no point in saving it. It can be thrown away.
But why can't we say the same thing about person-generated art? Not every piece of human-made art is or even deserves to be saved just due to the basic reason it was created by a person.
I think that it's too subjective, and this topic of discussion is guaranteed to go in circles, because the core premise of why art is a beautiful thing is that it is the essence of a subjective experience. For every million people who say AI art is worthless and garbage because it can be so easily produced, there will be someone out there like me who finds it to be beneficial and a wonderful and unique experience and saves the images that it generates.
Humans include effort into their calculations of artistic value. That's why we frame little childrens' scribbles.