AI-generated art shouldn't be eligible for the same awards as human-made pieces because the creative process differs fundamentally in intentionality and risk. I spent three years learning oil painting, and every brushstroke carried the weight of my mistakes and discoveries; an AI prompt is asking a model to average out existing works, not to engage with failure meaningfully. Some argue that the finished image is what matters, but if we value the story behind art, then removing human struggle from the equation changes the entire cultural meaning of a prize. Should institutions adapt their criteria, or is this a category error that dilutes the prestige of traditional craftsmanship?