My opposition is to demon tech produced by vampires.

I'm not going to take you seriously if you don't discuss this seriously.

Yes. Why would you even ask me this.

Depraved tentacle porn is art. —Why are you trying to like debate trick me into recoiling in disgust at what some people spend their time on?

Because you've made a distinction between art and visual media that isn't art without clarifying it at all - and that's still the case. Typically pornography is not classified as art. Both these cases describe visual content made (often) not as an emotional expression of the creator, but as a means of making money or sexual gratification. I'm not saying either is evil or disgusting (you're the one who contends that visual media made without emotion is morally deficient).

I await your clarification on what art is and whether AI images are still immoral if they only displace stuff produced for some other reason than emotional expression.

there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.

There certainly can be - check out people producing photorealistic art today, or the extremely realistic portraits produced before the advent of photography. Photography can be used in the process without being evident in the final image, too.

The fact is that most AI images today can be detected as such by anyone familiar with them. That may not be true forever, and the signs can be covered up by someone with the will, but then, that's the same as use of photography.

I can’t appreciate someone’s brush strokes if there is no way of knowing a brush was struck.

When I look at brush strokes I'm appreciating it visually because they look nice. If you view two pieces of art on a computer screen (so that you can't see the 3D aspect) do you respond differently to the brush strokes because one is a photo of an actual oil painting, whereas the other is a piece of digital art made in Krita where the brush strokes are simulated?