Your initial wording made me mistakingly think that your point was in showing that AI made creations worse but before, when humans made it themselves.
Now that I see your real point, I still cannot agree. Your arguing has a false premise of thinking that everyone wants genuine human expression everywhere and eye candy images are no longer enough. Yet proofs of that not being the case are right before your eyes - look at the amount of upvotes on this post. The ones posting comments like
I’d rather see a crayon picture than AI slop.
are a vocal minority. Most people see the good enough image generated by AI and pass on. They never bother to zoom in and look for the artifacts that it has. Most don’t have the time to look for the ChatGPT wording, they read the post diagonally for 10 seconds and move on with their life.
The argument has its roots in the problem of our different social surroundings. Maybe your life is full of people who have the time and energy to enjoy art that is not just looking decent but has a meaning, a message to it. Mine has a lot of people who are overworked and undereducated to play the game of being culturally superior, to look for humane expressions.
Sometimes, technologically decent is enough. For some people, a simple eye candy that your view for a short period of time is enough to improve their mood during a break. It does not erase the point of high art. It does not threaten it. Thus, I find people that come barking at every AI-generated piece of imagery or text or whatever, claiming that posting this is stealing from others, that such posts serve zero purpose, that it’s better to be shown something poorly drawn with crayon, ridiculous and pitiful.
This post has #kdenlive tag. AFAIK it is a desktop-only application.