For better or worse, I agree with your sentiment, but that will probably change. Consider how many kinds of foods and clothing are mass produced; we often consider something made by hand to be precious, and even a higher value, but we have become accustomed to the tradeoffs for cheaper solutions. It may not be our generation, but it's conceivable future generations will be less inclined to differentiate as we do (if only based on the exposure to what this kind of art generation offers at an early age).

I'm not convinced this is true. The economics of cultural production are far more winner take all than the economics of food and clothing production. Higher quality work gets more of the limited attention in that economy. AI work is doomed to fail because of this dynamic.

Everything gets re-appropriated by art, from mpeg frame skips to messy bedrooms.

Many of the quirks of our technology, like audio distortion for example, quickly become key components of certain styles. I remember as a child growing up in a funny valley after the acceptance of analogue distortion but before the widespread adaption of digital distortion.

Right now I'm thinking of someone like James Gerde, where the frame-to-frame shifts of AI imagination are part of the aesthetic. I think it's only a matter of time before this effect is matched up with something that makes emotional sense, and then it will blow up.

Using it that way requires intention. Developing that intention is hard to do if all you ever do is pull the one armed bandit hoping for AI to produce what you want.

Of course, any tool still requires a skilled artist to make good use of it.