I’d just note at this point that following this line of thinking is mostly just going to rehash a very recent discussion, so anyone with the urge to add to or rebut this might first want to read the conversation either side of this: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/use-of-ai-upscaling/52724/61
But to quickly summarise:
A lot of the confusion comes from people saying “AI” when what they really mean is image processing. The ‘AI’ distinction is meaningless - the important point is whether the image processing used (whether manual or automated by any sort of algorithm) is an operation designed to clarify the details of an image without misrepresenting it, or an act of generative art where the original data is only used as a hint for creating something Entirely Original.
If I create an accurate image of something I saw, as best I can, it’s an Observation. If I create something I only imagined, it’s Art, even if it’s based on things I’ve previously seen.
How I created those images (draw, paint, photograph) and what tools I used for that are irrelevant - what they are images of is all that matters when deciding if they qualify as a genuine observation of an existing creature.