If composing counts, you already conceded without knowing it. A composer isn’t picking up the violin. They still authored the piece. Electronic producers don’t need a session player for the track to be theirs. Right? The musician in your analogy is a person with their own performance. The AI model isn’t. It’s the instrument. Wording ideas until a person matches your head is a commission. Wording ideas until you accept a rendered frame is direction of a tool. That's an enormous key difference.

You made the program the painter in your argument so the human can stay the client. That’s the whole move, but it's definitelt fallacious. A camera also turns input plus software internals into a file. That wouldn't make say Nikon the photographer. “Taste from a database” is learned pattern. Humans have that. Edits and retakes are you steering, not notes to another artist who can refuse. “You’re always the prompter” only works if the only job that counts is laying pixels. Then the shutter is the artist too. It isn’t. The operator directed the work. The renderer isn’t a second person. You keep needing it to be one to fit your narrative.

All art is appropriation of other artists or aspects of life that were there long before the artist existed.

A phone can take that path in two seconds too. Whoops. A swing and a miss. Easy pictures exist in every medium. Not sure what you’re not getting. “Doesn’t take much” is worshipping the grind of art in and of itself which is not its definition. Some photos are point and shoot. Some AI images are one simple prompt. Neither fact deletes the cases where someone actually directed the result. You just posted a nice looking walk and called the whole category cheap. That’s your own biased taste. Again, not a definition.

Right. The button isn’t the whole photo. Congrats, you’re so close to getting it. Random keys aren’t the whole AI image either. Framing, constraints, editing, processing, and making selections exist on the AI art side too. Cobalt here described the monkey version and called it the medium. You’re describing the photographer version for cameras and the monkey version for this. That’s just intellectually dishonest. It’s the same overall fundamentals, but just a different label. So try that again without the double standard.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

By your logic, pressing a button on a camera isn’t talent either. Any monkey can do it. Try harder.

Scratch a Luddite and a fascist bleeds.

That’s a non-argument and conceding by default. We’re back to the “you’re not worth the effort/too stupid/you’re boring me” etc., coping talk of those who longer have a point. I also get that from 9/11 Truthers and Bible thumpers. Thanks for playing.

I guess we’ll sweep the anti-AI zealots under the rug that are saying if you make AI art you should end yourself.

Fan art uses someone else’s characters, look, and world without a license. You somehow call that not stealing despite hating generated art. If you look at AI tools, it’s training and crafting just at a more efficient rate. “Different words” as a distinction is hilarious because AI art and stealing are different words too. Lmao.

No, it’s “rules for thee, but not for me.” You’re too much of a dishonest hack to just explain. You don’t have an actual answer.

Got em. The intellectually dishonest hack blocked me. But as I was saying, the responsibility of an AI encouraging suicide is diffused unless the argument is that everyone is a meandering toddler. So yes, there are less tragic deaths than others realistically speaking.

Yes but you used that as an argument from authority and I showed why it wasn’t convincing. It’s that simple. As for “lives lost are lives lost” then let’s ban cars, airplanes, and trains. I mean if it saves lives right?

I gotta say it’s an extremely obnoxious form of bad faith to say I didn’t address your points, when I directly went against the heart of it all with your kill us all fearmongering. You may want to reread your first paragraph on it. Also, an AI going off and saying to end yourself ultimately boils down to a tech product safety issue that gets patched, upgraded or fixed like any other. And you’re eliminating the agency of these individuals that went through with it, whereas a more objectively worse tragedy is say an involuntary car accident (resulting in a death) due to a safety failure.

Just some food for thought: a camera is a machine that fills in the details for you as well. But the choice of selection, editing, and your own personal voice makes all the difference. And some painters back in day wrote in magazines and signed petitions saying photographers killed the creative aspect of art. Let’s make art have more ways to explore, not less.

You granted it isn’t a person, then called it a third party again. Pick one. Your role is only “the same” if the renderer is an artist. The AI model doesn’t get fed up because it isn’t someone you hired. That’s a tool. A camera is also cheaper than getting a ton of portraits done and doesn’t storm off if opinions don’t match. Nobody says that makes you a client of the sensor. “The AI is doing the creating” is you putting false credit on the process that lays down pixels. Same as giving it to the shutter. Requests don’t make a commissioner when the other side can’t author anything. You already said that side isn’t a person. The cheap-and-obedient bit is just you describing a tool and hoping those reading forget.

Why don’t they actually do anything about it? It’s their lives on the line too right? You’re sweeping that part under the rug instead of really asking. Fearmongering is an unbelievably useful tool to play to panicked emotions, freely handing government the keys to overregulation, so that the current players can monopolize and push out future competitors. The government as usual will just require mostly more fees, which is a small price to pay for being part of a new dominant oligarchy. The big players have extreme profit incentive to scare you.

Lmao. Seems the fact that I was mocking the reductionist argument went way over your head. Shame you’re this clueless.

That’s entirely fallacious though. A human artist is another person making the decisions. The program isn’t. That’s why the commission comparison fails. If you hand a painter a sentence, they bring their own taste, draft, and refusal. That’s a second author. If you aim a camera, the sensor is not an author. You still took the photo. Same here. The prompt isn’t the whole job unless you stopped at say one sentence. Picks, retries, edits, and the final cut are the direction. You’re pretending the only input possible is a caption so the machine can take the credit. A photographer has a curve of what effort they want to bring to the table too.