>>150214852
I have a possibly wrong answer to this question.
You know how the wealthy and powerful men of old tended to build themselves fine castles or mansions or so on, and generally cultivated collections of fine goods, refined culture, etc. which then became their own aesthetic? Eventually those guys became "old money", right? And those old money guys, broadly, they have something you could sort of call "good taste". They could be reprehensible people, tacky, eccentric, but real old money, REAL old money, is usually conceived of as having some class- of having refined taste.
However, we live in the twenty-first century. Eventually you started to get a lot of people who, in modern socioeconomic systems, got a lot of money fast. These people are usually referred to as "new money". Broadly, New Money people tend to try to sort of imitate Old Money in some ways- they too want to cultivate fine goods, refined ingroup cultures, etc. But the problem is that typically these people have zero sense of real taste. Instead of refined, beautiful things, they have a reputation for spending ludicrous sums on tacky, ostentatious things, far worse and shorter-lived than old money, of being more flamboyant whilst utterly lacking taste or decorum or anything, etc. etc. It's like comparing an old oil tycoon's manor or so to a millionaire's shitass McMansion. In a sense both are LARPs of real and established wealth and taste, but one is more respected/seen as cultured.
I think AI guys are sort of like that. It's the same logic which sort of drives them to want to call AI shit "democratization" of art; they want to have the airs of aritsts, but they have not put in the work and don't genuinely understand what makes for good aesthetics outside of some vague ideas. Corporate executives and normalfags are similar, hence the common phenomenon of extremely offputting "realistic" 3D adaptations of stylized 2D works. They literally have not developed taste.
