> Humans keep insisting that AI art is hideous slop. But also, when you peel off the labels, many of them can’t tell AI art from some of the greatest artists in history

I think there's a couple of reasons here.

1. AI art has existed for just a decade. Good AI art has only existed for a couple of years. People have experienced a lot of genuine AI slop over this time.

2. Even now when AI can generate good art, most of it is slop and there's just so much of it. Most people's experience of AI art is by seeing thousand of pieces of slop with a few good ones in between, unlike the art in this survey which is a careful selection.

3. Most people are just not that interested in seeking out AI art or forming opinions about it so they follow the herd opinion which is largely formed by artists who are worried about their livelihoods.

4. The pieces of AI art chosen in this survey were all picked to be not obviously AI. In other words, it's not even close to a properly chosen random sample. If it was, there would have been a lot of obvious slop in the survey and people would have been much better at identifying it. But then it wouldn't have been half as interesting and it wouldn't have been possible to write a series of articles being surprised at how bad humans are at identifying AI art.