This is all highly amusing at the moment, mainly because we are still able to identify it for what it is.
Artists always, (or most?) use their imaginations, but as their efforts are the work of their own ability, and of their hands, the finished articles should, by their very nature, always be recognisable by any onlooker as a potentially flawed product.
Manipulated photography (unless it is deliberately unrealistic or made for humour) cannot.
Many might be forgiven for thinking that CGI - in whatever form - is simply a "modern development" of traditional tools, and something that is a perfectly legitimate advance on pencils or paint on paper and canvas. I fear that it is not however.
I spent many years professionally producing illustrations for architects, and all the time was well aware of their desire to "big-up" or "prettify" their latest project - for either securing planning consent and or, selling on to a potential customer. It was also entirely my own responsibility to convince my clients that I was capable enough of achieving what they wanted. While I do admit to being a bitter and twisted soul, I am not in any way jealous of the new technologies that have stolen genuine craftsmanship away... I do not personally care as such, as I never enjoyed doing that job anyway! What still really irks my admittedly muddled brain is the continued use of the term "artist's impression"! A software algorithm may be a very clever bit of programming, but how dare they call it art - when no living artist has been involved in any part of the process?!
Believe me, I have tried to consider all the issues, but cannot help coming to the conclusion that our desire for, and headlong drive towards AI is like succumbing to the "call of sirens"!
Ok, so that is not such a good analogy, as mermaids don't actually exist... whereas, this particular threat to our ultimate survival does!
Pete.