Should AI Generated Art and Writing Be Banned from Creative Competitions?

 There have been a lot of heated discussions about AI's place in literary and artistic competitions due to its rise in the creative field. 

On one hand, proponents argue that AI is simply another tool that expands creative boundaries, enabling artists and writers to experiment with new forms and techniques.  

They think that competitions should change to reflect the changing nature of creative expression and that embracing AI-generated content can drive innovation. 

But critics say that if AI-generated works are allowed, competitions that celebrate human creativity could lose their essence. They raise concerns about originality and authenticity, arguing that when machines produce art or writing, it could devalue the hard-earned skills and personal narratives that define human creativity.

  In addition, there are ethical considerations regarding the AI-used training data, which frequently includes uncredited human works. 

As the debate unfolds, many organizers are faced with challenging questions about fairness, the value of human input, and how best to integrate or segregate AI contributions.  

Rules requiring the disclosure of AI assistance have already been implemented in some competitions, while others have moved to completely ban such entries. 

Do you think that creative competitions should include AI generated works as a sign of technological advancement, or should they keep a strict focus on human creativity and exclude AI-generated submissions?