I'm not particularly art savvy but I live in a major city and like museums. I have definitely seen modern pieces that I like and are actually though provoking so I'm not trying to say that all modern art is crap (although some of it almost has to be money laundering, but that's another matter)

    Yeah you can mimic the idea but all you get in the end is a JPG or whatever.

Sure, image generation software will never be able to go through the steps that humans go through to do something in physical space. It doesn't even have to be elaborate weathering, Stable Diffusion will never actually stroke a brush. Especially in the infancy of this tech it is extremely constrained to digital representation and simple prints. Even if stuck in its current state I wouldn't consider it novelty-only, but more physically involved means of production will likely become as thing as billions get invested into the tech.

    Please look up the definition of platitude. It's not very nice. 

I double checked the definition and it means what I meant to convey. I don't think it's particularly profound to say (especially without much support) that computers can never create "real" art and will always be bound to the realm of novelty. If you want to define art as something only humans create (and assert that the human involvement isn't sufficient to bring in the "human spirit") then that's a term you can use, it just doesn't mean much... Statements like these are not unusual when machines begin encroaching on some aspect of human life.

Also FYI its not very nice to psychoanalyze why people disagree with you, especially when its a petty reason.