> here's a human-made piece that I appreciate a lot

I like your art. I'm glad you made it. What I like most is that it's fun to look at and think about which is what you say you intended. I hope I get to see more of your art.

> To this point, I don't believe there's such a thing as "bad art" (all works have something to say about the artist!).

As a classically trained oil painter, I know for sure there is bad art especially because I've made more than enough bad art for one lifetime.

Bad art begins with a lack of craftsmanship and is exemplified by a poor use of materials/media and forms, or a lack of knowledge of those forms (e.g. poor anatomical knowledge, misunderstanding the laws of perspective), or an overly literal representation of forms (a photograph is better at being literal, for example).

> Here's an example of some "slop" from the AI Art Turing Test […] But it's very clearly AI-generated. Can you figure out why?

It's only "clearly AI-generated" because we know that AI is capable of generating art. If you saw this without that context you wouldn't immediately say "AI!" Instead, you'd give it a normal critique that you'd give a student or colleague: I'd say:

- there's too much repetition of large forms.

- there's an unpleasant hierarchy of values and not enough separation of values.

- The portrait of the human is the focus of the image yet it has been lost in the other forms.

- The composition can improve with more breathing room in the foreground or background which are too busy.

- Here look at this Frazetta!

However, my rudimentary list could just as easily be turned into prompts to be used to refine the image and experiment with variations. And, perhaps you'd consider that to be a human making decisions?